Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 Newer→ Last
-
I think we have successfully established that people like "Grant" are not going to be convinced, no matter how rational the argument, that a human consciousness based in brains thousands of times more complex than the most advanced computers on earth cannot also run on a tangle of basic synapses with less connections than a 1980s-era calculator, and that decisions regarding said bundle of synapses and ancillary cells ought to be made with according regard for the (fully human) host rather than the parasite - which may have potential for amazing things, but then so do eggs, and even vegans can find better arguments than this.
That Grant is in all likelihood shitting himself with laughter from his trollden on Formosa is another question altogether.
-
FFS "parasite" - back to the 70s useless discourse
-
On the other hand your suggestion that this might be my ego and that a mountain is the best place to practice what I believe is just ridiculous and so far off the mark it's not funny.
What’s wrong with a mountain? Quite a few wise men of lore were quite content on a mountain top. Why do people who get attached to some particular belief always feel the need to force it on everyone else.
Fact 1: At conception you expect us to apply the abstract label of baby to somehow engender feelings of protectionism. I prefer to call it a kumcuat. That’s what we call it in my belief system therefore I am correct.
Fact 2: Yet another label, human, applied to make us identify with it more. I think most folks, if asked to identify the human in a lineup would pick our dear kumcuat last. Frog embryos would probably stand a better chance of being called human than the two celled kumcuat.
(My apologies in advance to anyone offended. As mentioned previously I don't think that the label applied makes the decision any easier. I just don't like the lowbrow attempt to play on emotions. It's like old George Bush calling everyone he doesn’t care for a terrorist, as if it makes the decision to kill them easier.)
Regarding judgment 1: Entitled to the rights of all human beings? Is it going to vote? Is it going to own property? Perhaps the mother is a slave owner because the poor kumcuat is tethered to her. Folks may think that living at home with mom and feeding off of her is a right guaranteed to you at conception but most would believe that you're just a 30+ year old slacker who needs a real job :-)
Regarding judgment 2: Sorry...the lack of logic in your first argument precludes a real response to this one. But I do like how you've proceeded to 'judgments’. Obviously you now defy your own logic because at conception you apparently were deemed not ‘human’ but divine and thus qualified to be an author of judgments.
-
Grant is a hardcore Christian who is never going to change his stance on abortion, no matter how much robust debate is hurled at him.
I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. Thanks :)
It would be nice if someone was prepared to test this theory though. All we've had so far is appeals to the consequent and assaults on my appearance.
Pro-aborts on the defensive everywhere with no answer to the simple facts of life and humanity.
-
I think we have successfully established that people like "Grant" are not going to be convinced, no matter how rational the argument, that a human consciousness based in brains thousands of times more complex than the most advanced computers on earth cannot also run on a tangle of basic synapses with less connections than a 1980s-era calculator, and that decisions regarding said bundle of synapses and ancillary cells ought to be made with according regard for the (fully human) host rather than the parasite - which may have potential for amazing things, but then so do eggs, and even vegans can find better arguments than this.
You have no idea what you're saying. What do people with the ability to think have that people with the ability to build human bodies don't?
But I agree, vegans are pretty silly :D
-
What’s wrong with a mountain? Quite a few wise men of lore were quite content on a mountain top. Why do people who get attached to some particular belief always feel the need to force it on everyone else.
I haven't seen myself forcing anything on anyone. Do you know what "force" means? I think you wish me to retreat to a mountain so you will not have to listen to me.
Fact 1: At conception you expect us to apply the abstract label of baby to somehow engender feelings of protectionism. I prefer to call it a kumcuat. That’s what we call it in my belief system therefore I am correct.
No, you're not.
Fact 2: Yet another label, human, applied to make us identify with it more. I think most folks, if asked to identify the human in a lineup would pick our dear kumcuat last. Frog embryos would probably stand a better chance of being called human than the two celled kumcuat.
If you can't deal with reality then perhaps it is you that needs a vacation to a mountain top. Hmm?
(My apologies in advance to anyone offended. As mentioned previously I don't think that the label applied makes the decision any easier. I just don't like the lowbrow attempt to play on emotions. It's like old George Bush calling everyone he doesn’t care for a terrorist, as if it makes the decision to kill them easier.)
I do not deny that this is an emotional issue. You don't get to win any points by denying that emotion. You win points if you show me how a baby at conception is not alive and not human.
Regarding judgment 1: Entitled to the rights of all human beings? Is it going to vote?
What planet are you on? Does one have to vote to be a person?
Is it going to own property?
You're so weird!
Perhaps the mother is a slave owner because the poor kumcuat is tethered to her. Folks may think that living at home with mom and feeding off of her is a right guaranteed to you at conception but most would believe that you're just a 30+ year old slacker who needs a real job :-)
:shrug: You don't seem to have anything left.
Regarding judgment 2: Sorry...the lack of logic in your first argument precludes a real response to this one. But I do like how you've proceeded to 'judgments’. Obviously you now defy your own logic because at conception you apparently were deemed not ‘human’ but divine and thus qualified to be an author of judgments.
You cannot judge? So you don't know if what I say is good or bad then? Right or wrong? So, what was your post here all about again?
-
Only too glad to Robyn. Grant is not here on his own free will, if he has any left.
Oxymoron :)
He has been sent here as a troll by the "Collaborators Project" to either "convert" us or have us Label as "Permanent Collaborator Status"
Not so! I am here of my own accord. Though I have learnt a thing or two from people smarter than I. I don't think the American Right to Life tactics would work in New Zealand because the abortion industry is controlled by the hospitals. Even though hospitals might be privatised they are still seen as institutions rather than corporations. So while the financial aspect of the fight against abortion might work in the states it likely will not be effective in New Zealand.
Do not reply or even acknowledge him. If you must mention him, keep it in the third person ie. "He" or "Him" Generally, just ignore him. With luck he will slide off to his game forum or go back to whatever he does on BeBo.
'Tis true. If you stop posting I will likely not bother any more with this thread.
-
FFS "parasite" - back to the 70s useless discourse
Whoops - not my intention... I was aware that "parasite" would probably come across as some kind of moral judgment, rather than as a strictly accurate biological definition, but went for it anyway. Hope the rest of my post makes more sense, except for the bit about eggs (obviously non-fertilised as they appear in the average eggcup), and apologies to vegans for the halfhearted dig too.
Insensitive souls like me would really appreciate an edit button. It's only been a year and a half since PAS went up.
What do people with the ability to think have that people with the ability to build human bodies don't?
Hmm. Let's try to parse this. A person by definition is capable of consciousness and thought - utter cessation of these functions may leave behind a (semi) living human, but probably not a 'person' by any sensible definition. So people with the ability to think versus only the ability to grow have humanity, whereas those who merely grow do not.
However, I see you've lazily applied the term 'person' both to sentient beings and to jumbles of growing human cells, so I expect you to disagree. Don't say I didn't do my best trying to decode your nonsense, though.
-
Grant, it wasn’t your fault. You don’t have to take it out on other people though. I know you’re scared but listening to what these people say doesn’t have to threaten who you think you are now. Call your mom - she’d like that.
-
Sam I did something similar earlier on in the thread myself .
-
Hmm. Let's try to parse this. A person by definition is capable of consciousness and thought
:squint: Dolphins are people?
utter cessation of these functions may leave behind a (semi) living human, but probably not a 'person' by any sensible definition. So people with the ability to think versus only the ability to grow have humanity, whereas those who merely grow do not.
Why is the standard of 'thought' definitive of personhood? Is it a scaled thing? Are certain people with greater capacity for thought greater people than others? How do you measure thought? Do you realise that babies can think at the point at which they are routinely killed?
What, in fact, is a thought? If you're talking about what you can taste, touch and feel then thoughts are merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
The arbitrary assertion of any physical attribute as the determiner of personhood is fraught with potholes and logical inconsistency. Your assertion of an intangible thing called 'thought' is going to be impossible to make any sense of.
The fact is the only reason you need to find qualifications for personhood is so that you can justify killing off certain groups.
Now. Let's move on and see if you are prepared to give this any thought ;)
However, I see you've lazily applied the term 'person' both to sentient beings and to jumbles of growing human cells, so I expect you to disagree. Don't say I didn't do my best trying to decode your nonsense, though.
Of course I apply the term person to babies and to people! Why do you ascribe the term 'jumbled growths of cells' to living human beings?
Do you realise that 'jumbled bunch of cells' is capable of things you aren't even remotely aware of? You have a whole brain and cannot replicate such a thing, yet a baby at just one cell in size is able to build a whole body for himself in just a few months.
Are you up to the challenge, Sam F? Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to grow a brain. :)
-
Grant, it wasn’t your fault. You don’t have to take it out on other people though. I know you’re scared but listening to what these people say doesn’t have to threaten who you think you are now. Call your mom - she’d like that.
You're weird :)
But don't worry. I like weird. :)
-
<quote>:squint: Dolphins are people?</quote?>
Ooh. That is definitely another thread for another day, Grant.
-
This whole lack of an edit button thing is beginning to grate.
-
I had to search back through much more of the thread than I would have liked, but here is the single most fundamental flaw in Grant's position, in his own words:
1: [...] There will never be a lab experiment that can detect self awareness or weigh the value of a human life. We have moved beyond what science can tell us explicitly into an arena where we have to decide based on good judgment.
2: Because we cannot rely on data to determine the value of a human life we are rationally and morally bound to err on the side of caution. We are rationally bound because all the data sets we might apply can be applied to a baby at conception.
This is, of course, a Leap Of Faith:
"We have no conclusive evidence, therefore we must --"
No. The correct answer is not "we must", nor "we must not".
The correct answer is "what we decide is up to our own faith and beliefs".
Hence, I can say, with quiet conviction: Grant is wrong.
Further, if Grant thinks he has won, in the sense of "proving" himself "right", then he has lost an even bigger battle, because he can only get there by denying the importance of his own faith.
Grant clearly is troubled and frustrated by this issue. He has my sympathy. But in this, at least, not my agreement.
Take care, Grant. -
This is, of course, a Leap Of Faith:
"We have no conclusive evidence, therefore we must --"Oh, Linger. Don't do it! We do have evidence and science. The evidence says that at conception a baby is alive and human. The logical conclusion from that is to agree that babies at conception have the same metaphysical nature as all people. Faith comes in when we try to ascertain the nature of that life and humanity.
So, do you have that test for personhood yet?
I don't.
-
babies at conception
No such thing, unfortunately. You're talking about a fertilised human ovum, which is human (as all human cells are to an extent 'human') and alive (again, as are all living human cells). But whatever, continue.
have the same metaphysical nature as all people
Alive and human I can accept, but you're going to have to define 'metaphysical nature'. From where I'm sitting right now it looks a lot like 'nebulous religiously originated concept which allows me to bypass the differences between a human adult, a newborn baby, and a fertilised ovum with exactly two cells to rub together'.
-
Since many contraception methods rely on the rejection of fertilised ovum, I'm thinking we need huge new correctional facilities for all the baby-murderers.
And as it's now possible to clone a single cell into a mouse, it's also a fact that the cells which come off my hands after a vigorous wash are babies.
We are all guilty, and we're going to have to build a facility big enough to hold everyone. I suggest we call it "the world" and perhaps those too pure for it can find a better place.;-) -
Alive and human I can accept, but you're going to have to define 'metaphysical nature'. From where I'm sitting right now it looks a lot like 'nebulous religiously originated concept which allows me to bypass the differences between a human adult, a newborn baby, and a fertilised ovum with exactly two cells to rub together'.
I have made no attempt to define our metaphysical nature. I can if you want, but it's not been an issue. If you agree that babies at conception are alive and human (even if you wouldn't use my terminology) then it is up to you to show how they are not people. The facts of life and humanity are enough for me to recognise a new baby as a person. Why is it not enough for you?
Given that personhood is an abstract concept, not something that can be measured or tested for then it is you, the pro-abort, who relies on distinctions between person and non-person and you, the pro-abort, that needs to find a material explanation for a non-material entity.
In short, show me your personhood and you'll have a case. :)
Good luck :)
-
Sigh. And Rob Stowell had such a *nice* terminal roffle response!
-
Rob -"come off my hands after a vigorous wash "
-
Let's not buy into the line being peddled here for a second longer. Given the blatantly deficient argument interspersed through almost 600 posts I'm now far more curious about the deficient person that lies behind it.
Here's what I've noticed so far. Profoundly and wilfully ignorant. Seems fearful of the wild unpredictability of the universe and seeks a sense of control by imposing black or white views and ignoring inconvenient evidence. Unable to genuinely engage in conversation or community. Sad wee man who will probably try to shrug this off as "weird" without drawing a single breath.
-
Let's not buy into the line being peddled here for a second longer. Given the blatantly deficient argument interspersed through almost 600 posts I'm now far more curious about the deficient person that lies behind it.
You don't think it is enough that a baby is alive and human at conception. What do you think is enough?
-
Grant, grant, grunt. How do you feel?
-
Given that personhood is an abstract concept, not something that can be measured or tested for then it is you, the pro-abort, who relies on distinctions between person and non-person and you, the pro-abort, that needs to find a material explanation for a non-material entity.
Right then.
I believe personhood to be a function of a brain that can play host to self-aware consciousness. I do not believe that consciousness can occur in a embryonic brain or within the two cells of a fertilised ovum, because the biological hardware needed for consciousness to develop has not itself developed. A biological human may exist at these early stages, but a person does not. Human consciousness is the greatest mystery in the universe, but it is demonstrably impossible without the necessary hardware in place, as Kurt Cobain and many other victims of severe cranial trauma since the dawn of humanity have well proven.
This is obviously not a complete model of the mystery of personhood, but it at least has more basis in a reasonable understanding of human development than your approach, which is basically to declare personhood undefinable and then apply it to every confederation of vaguely human matter that attracts your sympathy.
Finally, it amuses me that you're assuming that what I say demonstrates my need to find some kind of excuse for denying personhood to a just-fertilised ovum - as if I secretly know that you're right about every sperm being sacred (as the poet wrote) and am merely trying to weasel out of my own feelings of guilt. Wrong. Sorry. I've done my best to explain my actual beliefs, but I am now going to leave you alone in your hermetically sealed mental universe, since that's obviously where you were planning on staying all along.
Out.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.