Next "logical" step after abortion?

Vince said:
Um, Ok. My science and logic is quite sound I assure you, as opposed to your ignorant holistic view of life which is absolutely horrid from a biological standpoint where "life" is often seen on both the singular level as well as massivly multicellular. I'll later answer your belief that the holistic "human" has "human" qualities which seperate them from "others". Organisms are built and functional on a low, cellular level. Perhaps this isn't apparent to you and you're bizzare, pseudo-18th century understanding of biology and consciousness, but it's true.

You, in all your perceived glory, you're nothing but a 'clump of cells' - the chosen phrase of the pro-abortion camp which still believes that they contain something as "humans" which is above that contained by other organisms and "constructs made of cells" - this just isn't true - on any level.

Perceived glory? If you notice, I even say that i'm nothing more than a collection of cells. Again, i'm under no illusion here, and I don't see myself as being above other animals or organisms. But, and I maintain this, there is a difference between a fully formed human and the couple of cells which starts the process. If you honestly can't see the difference, you've got issues far beyond basic name calling. Also, interestingly, you constantly downplay humans and their significance, yet you're against abortion. How does that work? Surely the more you look at us as mere cells, the less significance you put on ones life - since you seem to think those few cells are "life".

Cute, you're in favor of abortion, the killing of humans which you perceive to be the property of the mother. Maybe you can ask Natoma and other unfortunate people like his ancestors about how this works....

I've no idea what you're talking about with Natoma, but i'll say it again - It's about choice. I believe in people having a choice in this matter; you apparently do not. It's not about saying "you should have an abortion", it's about saying "you can have an abortion if you want".

Oh, right, it's that quality of "being Human" - that 'Human-ness" we all contain. So, where is the "Human-ness contained? Where is it today?

Well, in your genes, as encoded information but of course! But the fetus distinctly contains genetic information classified as belonging to Homo Sapiens... So, obviously, this can't support your case. Hmm, where else is this "Human-ness" which isn't genetic but an intangible quality of being Human that's not intrinsic to the species....

Let me guess, it's in the same place as Plato's "essences" and Aristotle's "substances" - better known as the waste-bin of legacy concepts which contemporary science has since filled with such disproved theories. Let me fill you in, around the 16th century, there began to be a movement away from this view of the world toward the mentality which has evolved into what I'm saying. People like Rene Descartes, Kant, Hume and eventually Russell opened the door to logical statements based on observable facts which lead to people like the infamous Ramon y Cajal to begin talking about what evolutionary neural developments actually existed which separated us.

You see there IS no difference, we're just arguing based on a different level of understanding. You're content to live in blind ignorance and state that something is "red" because it has some intangible and arbitrary quality known as "redness" whereas I'll look at it and say it's red because thats how we as humans perceive electromagnetism of ~650nm wavelength.

You continue to throw around names and theories whilst still missing my point. I'm not arguing that those cells don't contain everything that will go on to make it human. I'm not arguing that i'm any more than just a collection of cells. I'm arguing that just because you have the building blocks of life, it doesn't mean you HAVE life. It's no different to building any structure - You have the bricks and mortar, but you have nothing to show for it; no structure. That's all those first cells are - the bricks and mortar that are needed to make a fully formed person. I'm the structure and they are the building blocks. I'm not approaching this from a scientific background, and I don't pretend to do that either. I'm looking at this logically.

Just answer me this - is there ANY difference, in any way, between the initial cells created after fertilisation, and the final human being? I challenge you to be able to say there's no difference. I'm not talking about those cells being ABLE to become human, i'm talking about those cells BEING human. Hell, if you don't like the term human, then replace it with animal. Face the facts that the ability to become something is different to being something.

Ah Yes! The huge difference there is between killing humans due to their perceived level of development - regardless of if their "insignificant" because their Jewish or just a "clump of Cells."

Shocking and Naive? Perhaps we just know a bit more than you. Shocking indeed.

Also, you're never "the same as you were at that fateful moment [t[/t]]" - so can I redefine you at t+1 and kill you?


Perhaps they should have. Or better yet, maybe they should spare the present "clump of cells" you are from the horrific knowledge and life that you could possibly assimilate tomorrow. Lets be kind and kill you tonight.... who knows what tomorrow will bring, other than you're not the same as you were today.

This is all great, but you're still hiding behind science that you think helps your argument. Descending to making comparisons between Nazis and Pro-Choice is just an example of the kind of crap that I hate, as you again ignore the differences. Over-simplification the facts? Why not just go ahead and call yourself the President of the USA? Feel free to retort with more science "fact", again ignoring everything I've said.
 
PaulS said:
This is all great, but you're still hiding behind science that you think helps your argument. Descending to making comparisons between Nazis and Pro-Choice is just an example of the kind of crap that I hate, as you again ignore the differences. Over-simplification the facts? Why not just go ahead and call yourself the President of the USA? Feel free to retort with more science "fact", again ignoring everything I've said.

Wow. Lets get this strait. Science is the persuit of 'truth', if I *must* hide behind that - I don't exactly consider it a bad position as opposed to your unknowing regurgitation of ancient philisophical stances which you deem "logic". I'm reading what you're saying, but unbenownst to you it's been stated before, disproved, and buried already. There is no Lazarus condition, it's really gone. It just doesn't make sense from a contemporary perspective knowing what we do today - I can't state this enough. Atleast use some 'logic' which is post-Russell/Whitehead.

Also, while your attempt to form my arguement into this stereotypical mold which makes "Nazis/Hitler/Holocaust" analogous to "Pro-abortion" I never went that far that strongly. I really don't see why this is even brought up; but I think it has to do with your perception of this argument.

Also, interestingly, you constantly downplay humans and their significance, yet you're against abortion. How does that work?

It works because I don't see why unnecessary killing must happen because the "parents" were too ignorant, too stoned, too drunk, or just plain didn't care. Especially in the first world, where in the US alone, there is no reason that you shouldn't be using a condom if you're having premarital sex since they basically give them away here. But, yet, people shall die because their parents were fuck-ups. Makes sence to me... :rolleyes:

Personally, I empathize most with events which aren't capable of being prevented by an individual; The fact that the kid never got a chance to show the world what he could do, what he could accomplish. To not even give him the chance for the reasons given... is a travesty IMHO.
 
Vince said:
Wow. Lets get this strait. Science is the persuit of 'truth', if I *must* hide behind that - I don't exactly consider it a bad position as opposed to your unknowing regurgitation of ancient philisophical stances which you deem "logic". I'm reading what you're saying, but unbenownst to you it's been stated before, disproved, and buried already. There is no Lazarus condition, it's really gone. It just doesn't make sense from a contemporary perspective knowing what we do today - I can't state this enough. Atleast use some 'logic' which is post-Russell/Whitehead.

And yet, despite my opinion being so outdated, so unfactual, and having been stated before (and I'm not denying that last one), the best you can come up with is... nothing. I'm still waiting for my answer to this question:

Just answer me this - is there ANY difference, in any way, between the initial cells created after fertilisation, and the final human being? I challenge you to be able to say there's no difference. I'm not talking about those cells being ABLE to become human, i'm talking about those cells BEING human. Hell, if you don't like the term human, then replace it with animal. Face the facts that the ability to become something is different to being something.

Feel free to reply with a proper answer, as opposed to just calling my ideas out of touch with reality. Back it up with Science fact if you want. Go on, I dare ya. Tell me you see no difference and undermine your argument once more. Hell, go the whole way and tell me once more that abortion is murdering a child.

Also, while your attempt to form my arguement into this stereotypical mold which makes "Nazis/Hitler/Holocaust" analogous to "Pro-abortion" I never went that far that strongly. I really don't see why this is even brought up; but I think it has to do with your perception of this argument.

You indicated that you saw no difference between what the Nazis did and what pro-choice people are saying we should have the right to do. As far as I can see, that's a comparison. If i'm wrong on that, then do tell me - because the intent behind your words seem fairly obvious to me.

It works because I don't see why unnecessary killing must happen because the "parents" were too ignorant, too stoned, too drunk, or just plain didn't care. Especially in the first world, where in the US alone, there is no reason that you shouldn't be using a condom if you're having premarital sex since they basically give them away here. But, yet, people shall die because their parents were fuck-ups. Makes sence to me... :rolleyes:

Personally, I empathize most with events which aren't capable of being prevented by an individual; The fact that the kid never got a chance to show the world what he could do, what he could accomplish. To not even give him the chance for the reasons given... is a travesty IMHO.

I don't disagree that there's little excuse for unwanted pregnancies nowadays, and I don't disagree that there are plenty of measures people could/should take to stop themselves becoming pregnant. But my feeling is we have the science and the brains to correct those mistakes, rather than just compound the mistake by following through with a pregnancy that neither party is fully committed to. Child rearing should be something you're putting all your energy into, not some half-assed effort because the moral minority/majority deem abortion "murder" and "unethical".
 
Have a baby, give it up for adoption, start using birth control. 3 easy steps.

The liberals of the forum would agree with me that adoption over abortion is a good path. It's one of the handful of viable routes for homosexuals, that you people fully support with pride, to build families. Sorry if that sounded wrong. :)
 
PaulS said:
And yet, despite my opinion being so outdated, so unfactual, and having been stated before (and I'm not denying that last one), the best you can come up with is... nothing. I'm still waiting for my answer to this question:

Just answer me this - is there ANY difference, in any way, between the initial cells created after fertalization, and the final human being? I challenge you to be able to say there's no difference. I'm not talking about those cells being ABLE to become human, i'm talking about those cells BEING human. Hell, if you don't like the term human, then replace it with animal. Face the facts that the ability to become something is different to being something.

Feel free to reply with a proper answer, as opposed to just calling my ideas out of touch with reality. Back it up with Science fact if you want. Go on, I dare ya. Tell me you see no difference and undermine your argument once more.

I already answered this when I stated that I don't see a difference. Yet, your constant preaching to the visual difference instead of any fundamental tenant should be addressed as your argument is untenable.

Biological life, of any size, at any time, is going to be a dynamic entity as per the bounds imposed on it by the underling physics which exist in our universe. An organism, if we could 'capture' it's exact formation and composition down to the most fundamental level (regardless of what that is on a physical level), would never be the exact same between what we saw at time t and t+n n>0. As n becomes larger, the differences become larger and larger until eventually the organism is either completely different from a physical level or it dies and is subsequently different as it physically decomposes.

But, some things are somewhat static. Information underlies all organisms and it's encoding in "lifeforms" is pretty stable all things considered (error rate of 1:1E9 bp is common) and there has been an evolutionary trend to introduce more and more mechanics to further repair DNA.

So, we have two process which are fundamentally diametric. On one hand we have the environment which is causing a constant, divergent, change in the actual organism's composition and the Genetically based trend to keep the organism consistent. These will form the basis of this discussion as they open the door to the fundamental questions you're fucking up.


An organism, in my and many other's opinions, is fundamentally reducible to information and the transmission of it vis-a-vis genes. Your body is nothing but a physical manifestation of the information embodied genetically which has been present since conception, which is when the ability to self-replicate began (see all the reoccurring language and why I talked about where humans evolved from?).

Thus, when you state something such as "is there ANY difference, in any way, between the initial cells created after fertilization, and the final human being?" it's nothing but a linguistic twist on what's occurring; which is allowable because of sheer ignorance/lack of knowledge and the pseudo-science I talked about.

And here's why: (I already covered this, but maybe it'll make more sense in this context) As far as "Human" goes, being human is reduced to having a specific aperiodic code which is genetically transmitted, location dependent, and has allowances for a given variance within these conditions. You can read the code yourself since the completion of the Human Genome Project. And this information is present at the time of conception, which we'll call tc. So, from tc to tc + n. where n describes the period alive untill formal death, you're basically "alive" and "Human."

You've further went, in the last response, and preached to high illogic with your call to comparing a "fetus" with "a final human being." Genetics already leads back to my argument as it's [basically] constant thought a life - but you're argument is based on physical looks, manifestations, and development. Which isn't a sustainable position as you're never the same physical manifestation of the underling information you just were a moment ago (as we covered) and never the same at any two points in life. So, of course there is a difference - but there's also a difference between the person whose typed the message I'm responding to and the person who will type a response to it. So, way to show nothing.

What you're doing is imposing an arbitrary semantic bound on the progression of "life" with the use of "human" that has no true biological basis in that it doesn't recognize what's been stated here very basically (not to mention the other countless objections). Instead, you're turning to one of the last truly obscured and extremely shadowy parts of biology left - consciousness - and trying to define some arbitrary bound using "when someone is conscious"

From a scientific standpoint, it's premature to say either case is right; but from what we know you're position is ludicris. Even utilizing the most basic metric for what defines consciousness I can think of, you can draft extreme positions which allow me to kill otherwise fully healthy people.

For example, it's most probable that when not during the period Kleitman called "peridoxical sleep," that whole REM thing, you're not conscious. If you look at the ERPs recorded during sleep, none show the known signs of consciousness while a person is undergoing SWS.

So, lets arbitrarily define entities undertaking SWS as "PaulS" and figure that just because they're not conscious - there's no hurt in killing them off then. As you previously stated:

[url=http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=216593#216593 said:
PaulS, pg2[/url]]This goes back to my previous point - You can say a lot of things are "alive", but that doesn't mean that they're alive in the same way you and me are alive. That's why abortion isn't murder, because you're not killing a person.

If you're a PaulS, your ERP's as seen on a few EEGs look absolutly nothing like the fast, irregular, and low-voltage stuff seen in a normal, conscious, person. It doesn't even matter if you truely are locally conscious during SWS as the ERP looks nothing like it!! "Human Life" now looks like: atc + n, where c is conscious beginning and n is the period of consciosuness - roughy 18 hours, and a is the number of cycle untill formal death. So, looks like I can kill your ass off roughly a(d-n) with d being the total elapsed hours from one consciosness cycle to the next. I might have had an error, the point gets across and I'm late for dinner out, just reply with the correct thing if you're so inclinded. :)

Shit, I'm not killing a person... I'm killing a PaulS - he won't feel it, he won't remember it, he won't know what he missed.
 
Back
Top