I don't care if you think abortion is wrong.

[Lisa0315]

Not at all. To use your chocolate chip analogy:


If you have 90 cookies that average 5 chips per cookie and 10 cookies the average 10 chips per cookie it would be a fair statement to say that you have more chocolate chips in the 90 than you do in the ten.

She made no comments about frequency per individual. Only that most sodomy is committed by heterosexuals. Gross numbers carries that one, not statistics.

(Rubs hands eagerly in statistical debate)

I absolutely agree that most sodomy is committed by heterosexuals simply by the sheer numbers of hetero vs homosexual relationships. I get that.

My point is that it is a meaningless statistic. One could also say that heterosexual couples have more children than homosexual couples. Well, duh. Of course they do by the sheer number of hetero couples outweighing homosexual couples, and because of the built in ability to have children of heteros vs having to adopt by homosexual couples. See? It means nothing.

What is being argued here though is the morality of sodomy in regards to the prohibition in Scripture. So, the argument that the "sin" is committed by more heterosexuals than homosexuals is meaningless.

She may not have said frequency, but frequency is the only thing that can be tested meaningfully. Sheer numbers is meaningless, no value added to the argument.

Lisa

 

[selfinflikted]

My point is that it is a meaningless statistic. One could also say that heterosexual couples have more children than homosexual couples. Well, duh. Of course they do by the sheer number of hetero couples outweighing homosexual couples, and because of the built in ability to have children of heteros vs having to adopt by homosexual couples. See? It means nothing.Lisa

Sorry to stick my nose in here, but I have a correction to make to these statements. Homosexuals do have "built in ability" to have children, the same as heterosexuals

 

[Lisa0315]

Sorry to stick my nose in here, but I have a correction to make to these statements. Homosexuals do have "built in ability" to have children, the same as heterosexuals

MY BAD!!!!!! Of course they do!!!! LOL!

What I meant is that as a couple, they cannot conceive without some help or they have to adopt.

Lisa

 

[selfinflikted]

MY BAD!!!!!! Of course they do!!!! LOL!

What I meant is that as a couple, they cannot conceive without some help or they have to adopt.

Lisa

Ya, I know .. was just being nitpicky. I'm in one of those moods today...

 

[Lisa0315]

Ya, I know .. was just being nitpicky. I'm in one of those moods today...

Oh, that is okay. Please do correct me anytime! I do not want to win another Fundies Say the Darndest Things Award again because I misspeak. PM me and I will tell you what I won and why. It was very embarrassing.

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why is that the criteria for determining a right to life? Because you say so?



If there is no desire for life, why does it live? Why do those cells divide, why does the organism build itself into an increasingly more complex being? No conscious desire to live? What does that mean? It certainly wants to live, it devotes all its energy to doing just that. Are you saying its because it hasn't yet attained our level of cognitive awareness? So what? It will. I did and you did.

As for interpersonal connections, that is an amazingly weak argument. Unless you're saying a bum on the street nobody cares about has no right to life. Please tell me you're not saying that.

The bum on the street presumeably cares about his own life, and would be aware of fear and pain if someone were to try to remove it from him.

A foetus, however, is not.

Yes, a foetus grows and so on... but that is because of a complex chemical cascade, not because of any "will"... saying a foetus grows because it "wills" it makes no more sense than saying a fire burns because it has the "will" to do so.

 

[Westvleteren]

Are you saying its because it hasn't yet attained our level of cognitive awareness? So what? It will. I did and you did.

Yes, it will. That's the point -- it hasn't yet. If it's aborted, it won't, and it won't have missed anything.

It's only the bias humans feel, having experienced life and looking back in hindsight, that makes them project their emotional attachment to existence onto a fetus that is incapable of sharing those emotions or experiences.

For example, I can choose Timeline A and go out with the nerd who asked me to the prom, then later marry him and have three children. Or I can choose Timeline B, turn the nerd down, marry the dumb jock, then divorce him and remain childless. Does that mean I've murdered all the potential children from Timeline A? Was it unfair not to give them a chance to live?

An embryo has just that level of potentiality. Timeline A -- I carry the pregnancy to term, the child is born, experiences life and develops the personality and set of memories that shape it into a person. Timeline B -- I abort the pregnancy and no child is born.

 

[rydog32]

The bum on the street presumeably cares about his own life, and would be aware of fear and pain if someone were to try to remove it from him.

A foetus, however, is not.

Yes, a foetus grows and so on... but that is because of a complex chemical cascade, not because of any "will"... saying a foetus grows because it "wills" it makes no more sense than saying a fire burns because it has the "will" to do so.

But a fire also wants to live to. It may not have concisenesses but it will engulf anything that comes in its path burning it, then moving on. The only thing to stop a fire is to take away its food source being wood or gas etc or throwing a bucket of water on it. Same goes with a fetus or cells. It/They want to live but you take away its food or put it out, then your killing something obviously.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But a fire also wants to live to. It may not have concisenesses but it will engulf anything that comes in its path burning it, then moving on. The only thing to stop a fire is to take away its food source being wood or gas etc or throwing a bucket of water on it. Same goes with a fetus or cells. It/They want to live but you take away its food or put it out, then your killing something obviously.

Um... sure... I never said that abortion isn't killing. I just said that it isn't the same as killing a person. killing a foetus that has no more self awareness than a fire is not comparable to killing a person that IS self aware

 

[rydog32]

How do you know that?
All you know is that it burns but maybe it has a conscience thats either to little or to vast that its comprehendable to people.

 

[Avatar]

I'll ask it yet again...

Who decided that self-awareness is the criteria that must be met to have a right to life?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How do you know that?
All you know is that it burns but maybe it has a conscience thats either to little or to vast that its comprehendable to people.

maybe... but as for me, I'll stick to evidence based theories... is there any empirical evidence to suggest fire has conciousness? No.

 

[Lisa0315]

maybe... but as for me, I'll stick to evidence based theories... is there any empirical evidence to suggest fire has conciousness? No.

Well, of course not, but fire has no life. We are talking life.

I will repeat Avatar's question. Who decided that sentinent life was the cut off point for valuable life, and if so, why do we go to such extreme measures to save endangered turtle eggs? They are not sentinent.

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'll ask it yet again...

Who decided that self-awareness is the criteria that must be met to have a right to life?

I don't think it does. I think every living thing has a right to live, but I also think that denying some things that right is LESS problematic than more sentient things.

What can I say? In terms of absolute, knockdown "killing is wrong and here's why" terms, sentience is where I draw the line... I can logically and ethically support the proposition that killing a sentient being is unethical, whereas I can see how killing a non-sentient being, while not necesarily a desireable thing to do, is LESS wrong.

To say killing of non sentients as unethical you have to get into really grey areas like "it has the POTENTIAL to become concious" and "it will EVENTUALLY be a fully functioning person". Whereas with an ACTUAL person, living, breathing, in the room with us now, there is no such grey area. Killing you know would be negative for the following concrete reasons:
1. You wouldn't like it
2. Your friends and family wouldn't like it
3 Itwould cause material damage to the part of your society and culture that you are actively involved in

Any negative effects of killing a foetus can only be measured in potentials and supposition:
1. You MIGHT be killing the next Einstein
2. If you don't kill it it WOULD grow up to have its own thoughts and feelings

and so on.

 

[rydog32]

Well it burns does it not? Is there any empirical evidence that animals might have a consciousness and may not just react to their environment because they were programmed to like for instance if made a loud noise and you looked/.

 

[Lisa0315]

Well it burns does it not? Is there any empirical evidence that animals might have a consciousness and may not just react to their environment because they were programmed to like for instance if made a loud noise and you didn't look/.

Dude, that is a lousy argument. Sorry, just is.

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well, of course not, but fire has no life. We are talking life.

I will repeat Avatar's question. Who decided that sentinent life was the cut off point for valuable life, and if so, why do we go to such extreme measures to save endangered turtle eggs? They are not sentinent.

Lisa

because endangered turle eggs are the only way to get more endangered turtles... hopefully lessening their endangeredness.

Humans are not endangered... indeed, we are in plague proportions some places

 

[Avatar]

I don't think it does. I think every living thing has a right to live, but I also think that denying some things that right is LESS problematic than more sentient things.

What can I say? In terms of absolute, knockdown "killing is wrong and here's why" terms, sentience is where I draw the line... I can logically and ethically support the proposition that killing a sentient being is unethical, whereas I can see how killing a non-sentient being, while not necesarily a desireable thing to do, is LESS wrong.

Why?

To say killing of non sentients as unethical you have to get into really grey areas like "it has the POTENTIAL to become concious" and "it will EVENTUALLY be a fully functioning person".

I don't have to do any such thing. Again you've reverted to the idea that sentience of a human being is a prerequisite for rights. I don't agree.

Whereas with an ACTUAL person,

It is an actual person! Why you (plural) don't see that is beyond me.

living, breathing, in the room with us now, there is no such grey area. Killing you know would be negative for the following concrete reasons:
1. You wouldn't like it
2. Your friends and family wouldn't like it
3 Itwould cause material damage to the part of your society and culture that you are actively involved in

Utterly irrelevant, measuring a person's worth by what others think of them.

Any negative effects of killing a foetus can only be measured in potentials and supposition:
1. You MIGHT be killing the next Einstein
2. If you don't kill it it WOULD grow up to have its own thoughts and feelings

and so on.

The negative effect is that you are killing a human being when he or she is most helpless.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well it burns does it not? Is there any empirical evidence that animals might have a consciousness and may not just react to their environment because they were programmed to like for instance if made a loud noise and you didn't look/.

This is whats called the "hard question"... when does a bunch of nbeural cells stop acting on instinct and start acting conciously?

Best answer we have is "common consensus". What can I tell ya? More research is needed.

BUT! while the limit of conciousness isn't very well understood (humans are concious, but are chimps? dolphins? dogs? rats? sparrows? lizards? frogs? and so on down the chain, no one is really sure where to draw the upper line) we certainly know that bellow a certain point things definately are NOT concious... crabs, insects, clams... and so on. So... when a foetus has fewer neural cells than a clam or crab, it is really, REALLY unlikely to be concious.

 

[Lisa0315]

because endangered turle eggs are the only way to get more endangered turtles... hopefully lessening their endangeredness.

Humans are not endangered... indeed, we are in plague proportions some places

If that is the case, then, your argument for sentienceyis out the window, or at least, you must add a second criteria.

So, now, we have the following:

We may kill life if it is not yet sentinent and it has no future value.

Uh oh, how do you know that babe doesn't have future value?

Lisa