diarrhea_splatter
Banned
either way it's sick science. I see where they are coming from, but it's definitely a moral issue.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
Also, interestingly, you constantly downplay humans and their significance, yet you're against abortion. How does that work?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
[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.