Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 Newer→ Last
-
Like celebrating. I'm off to buy the wife her 1st wedding anniversary present. Ciao.
-
Smug.
-
Well this thread has certainly gone on for a while.
Just came across this article that is relevant to some of the concepts discussed approvingly in previous posts. You can quite quickly get onto a slippery slope into a dark, dark world.
-
Right then.
That's a good start :)
I believe personhood to be a function of a brain that can play host to self-aware consciousness.
What makes your assertion more valid than any other? I assert personhood is a value conferred to people by Almighty God. Neither of us has a test we can run to prove our points. It is simply my opinion against yours. The real question is the motivation for insisting that we are right. I insist that we are accountable for our words and actions and therefore it is of great importance that we get the issue of personhood right. What motivation do you have for insisting that self-awareness is necessary for personhood to be conferred?
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.
Do you believe consciousness can occur in an unconscious person? I don't. Yet I don't rate that person as any less of a person. I assume he will wake up and take control of himself again. I'm prepared to give a baby the same benefit of your doubt. I say your doubt because that's the only source of any doubt here.
What if you are wrong? Are you prepared to face up to the consequences of what you advocate if you are?
A biological human may exist at these early stages, but a person does not. Human consciousness is the greatest mystery in the universe
And you seem to be its greatest scholar :D
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.
Those people were demonstrably dead. Clearly something is vastly different between a dead person and a newly conceived one. What possible benefit can it have to your argument to compare babies at conception with dead people? You do realise that before those babies are aborted they are alive and then after they are aborted they are dead, right? You clearly have not thought what you believe through and are backing it up with things you've been told but have never had the courage to challenge.
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.
Not at all! I believe that mothers conceive living human babies and it is those babies that I recognise as human. And to then describe my sympathy in a negative light is profoundly dishonest. OF COURSE I am sympathetic to the cause of babies who are routinely killed to satisfy the irresponsibility of their parents. OF COURSE I am sympathetic when those babies do not even have an opportunity to protest! OF COURSE there should be sympathy! Why are you so callous?
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.
I'm assuming nothing. It is you that is trying to determine when personhood begins and is hoping to find justification for your assertions. My judgment is correct and you are scared because it cuts through your bluster :)
Out.
I didn't even appeal and you're walking?
-
Smug
Is that an abbreviation for something? S.mug?
What does the 'S' stand for? :)
-
That's an interesting article, James. What is your take on it?
-
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.
You wish to force yourself on others or else you wouldn't be talking about the choice a mother makes. A choice that the last I checked , as a male, you inheriently can not make.
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.
I think you'll find that my conclusion based on my kumcuat belief system is just as valid as yours based on yours insomuch as any conclusion based on a belief system, i.e. something you take on faith and not fact, is true.
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?
I don't think I can deal with a reality that is defined by you. I think you missed the point of what a construct is.
(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.
I like how you continue answer your own question by assuming you know what 'baby' 'alive' and 'human' consist of. I'd like to know what you made you decide to apply these labels to a zygote.
What planet are you on? Does one have to vote to be a person?
Please oh divine Grant tell us what "human rights" consist of that this two celled creature can participate in?
Is it to be guaranteed shelter, food and the right to not be terminated?
Are you willing to extend and champion these rights to all humans? Last I checked, no, because you wish to 'string up adulters'.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?
Correct, I can not pass judgment on others as you are so willing to do. I personally am glad you are so tight with your God that you know exactly what he thinks about every scenario to the point that you are willing to speak on his behalf. Apparently he personally came to you and told you at what point something becomes a baby and becomes human. Perhaps you should publish and let the rest of the world know that you, GD, have your Gods answers to all the modern questions. You'd sell a million books as I am sure that nobody else has ever presupposed what God thinks before.
Is what you say right or wrong? Only for you...
-
You wish to force yourself on others or else you wouldn't be talking about the choice a mother makes. A choice that the last I checked , as a male, you inheriently can not make.
I've never claimed that I am the one choosing to kill babies. Nor am I justified in taking any action against those who do choose to. You are hereby challenged to re-read this thread and show me where I have forced anyone to do anything. I think by the mere act of reading and rejecting what I say should be evidence enough for you that your accusations here are garbage.
I think you'll find that my conclusion based on my kumcuat belief system is just as valid as yours based on yours insomuch as any conclusion based on a belief system, i.e. something you take on faith and not fact, is true. I don't think I can deal with a reality that is defined by you. I think you missed the point of what a construct is.
The facts I stated are facts. The nonsense you outlined is nonsense. At conception we have a living human. That is indisputable fact. That you are disputing it makes you a fringe dwelling member of the thing we know as reality ...
Just thought you'd like to know :)
I like how you continue answer your own question by assuming you know what 'baby' 'alive' and 'human' consist of. I'd like to know what you made you decide to apply these labels to a zygote.
OK. Let me explain what I mean by the terms I use:
I call a baby a baby like a mother might when she learns she is pregnant. As soon as she learns that she is pregnant she will inform her husband. She might say, "We are having a baby". Sure, she may not be using the technically correct medical term, but I think we all understand the entity being referred to. If you do not like my terminology then don't use it. I happen to like it.
I call that baby alive because at conception we have a living baby. This is medical fact. You should not argue with it.
I call that baby human because at conception we have a human baby. That is medical fact. You should not argue with it.
If you prefer the term zygote then feel free to repeat what I just said and say zygote where I say baby. See if you can agree with yourself then. :)
Please oh divine Grant
I'm not divine. :nono:
tell us what "human rights" consist of that this two celled creature can participate in? Is it to be guaranteed shelter, food and the right to not be terminated?
The right to life encapsulates the right to nourishment, shelter and protection from termination. I think you summed things up well :)
Are you willing to extend and champion these rights to all humans?
Of course!
Last I checked, no, because you wish to 'string up adulters'.
Hmmm. That was an exaggerated expression from another discussion that really has no place here. But since you bring it up I suppose I could show you how even you believe that there is a time to kill. As I have said a few times the right decision requires the right judgment. Even you agree that sometimes it is the right thing to do to kill another person. That we do not agree on when life should be protected and when life should be taken is perfectly in line with the fact that we disagree on this topic.
We disagree over the legal right to abort babies and we probably disagree over the penalty for adultery. But we agree there is a time to kill and a time to protect. Am I correct?
Correct, I can not pass judgment on others as you are so willing to do.
Perhaps you just need some practice. Do you think it is right or wrong to pass judgment?
I personally am glad you are so tight with your God that you know exactly what he thinks about every scenario to the point that you are willing to speak on his behalf.
Thanks for the support. I wish what you said were moreso :)
Apparently he personally came to you and told you at what point something becomes a baby and becomes human.Perhaps you should publish and let the rest of the world know that you, GD, have your Gods answers to all the modern questions. You'd sell a million books as I am sure that nobody else has ever presupposed what God thinks before.
No personal revelation. Just a small understanding of what He said :)
Is what you say right or wrong? Only for you...
What does that mean?
-
Re: this article: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=592291
That's an interesting article, James. What is your take on it?What is my take? That the road to hell is paved with what those doing the paving would insist are good intentions.
Those promoting eugenics thought that they were right and that they were doing the world a favor. We now look upon their work with horror.
There is some unmistakable crossover between eugenics and concepts discussed previously on this thread, such as personhood. Whether that was the intention or not, I don't know, but personhood seems to me to be a construct that achieves the dehumanization of a fetus, an unborn baby, an elderly person with problems like Alzheimer’s or an handicapped person to a point where people feel justified and comfortable whacking those we don't deem to have personhood. Not a nice place to be in my view.
A thought process that can be interpreted without twisting or stretching as justifying infanticide is just plain wrong. But I am sure the intentions were good, it is just that somewhere along the road things went horribly wrong. A thought process that arrives at such a destination should automatically be discarded. Perhaps a case of having to be very smart to be so stupid.
I read an article a while ago that compared elective abortion with slavery (elective abortion having nothing to do with the health and wellbeing of the mother or issues such as rape and incest etc.) A couple of centuries ago people thought slavery was just fine, a perfectly normal thing to do (except for a few Christian extremists, those damn Christians!!). And now we look at slavery as an abomination, a grotesque moral wrong. But perhaps with relativism increasingly prevailing, where you can get to anywhere you want to go, such moral clarity is less likely to occur.
-
I've never claimed that I am the one choosing to kill babies. Nor am I justified in taking any action against those who do choose to. You are hereby challenged to re-read this thread and show me where I have forced anyone to do anything.
Last I checked you wanted to make law your opinion that women cannot decide for themselves..a law that does not take into regard what an individual believes are their rights as a human. Oddly ironic of you.
Posted at 4:47PM on 10 Jun 08. "Why not institute laws that work. Laws that do not regard the way people feel or the rights they think they are losing"
The facts I stated are facts. The nonsense you outlined is nonsense. At conception we have a living human.
I don't think anyone believes that at conception it fits the definition of human. A zygote lacks human free will. It lacks the ability to perceive its surroundings or manipulate its surroundings. It lacks any perceivable quality that would differentiate it as more ‘human’ than any zygote in any other animal.
I call a baby a baby like a mother might when she learns she is pregnant. As soon as she learns that she is pregnant she will inform her husband. She might say, "We are having a baby".
I think you’ll find you are using the future tense as in “We are going to have a baby” which is an assumption that at the end of a 9 month process they will have a baby.
I call that baby alive because at conception we have a living baby. This is medical fact. You should not argue with it.
Again I don’t think you will find anyone in the medical field that calls a fertilized egg a baby.
I call that baby human because at conception we have a human baby. That is medical fact. You should not argue with it.
Another leap in logic. Funny how you claim to use your own terminology when it suits you but then claim the medical community backs you up.
If you prefer the term zygote then feel free to repeat what I just said and say zygote where I say baby. See if you can agree with yourself then. :)
So at this point you don’t think medical terminology is good enough for you.
The right to life encapsulates the right to nourishment, shelter and protection from termination. I think you summed things up well :)
So you would be all for passing laws that guarantee housing, grantee nourishment and prohibit killing including the death penalty?
Hmmm. That was an exaggerated expression from another discussion that really has no place here. But since you bring it up I suppose I could show you how even you believe that there is a time to kill. As I have said a few times the right decision requires the right judgment. Even you agree that sometimes it is the right thing to do to kill another person. That we do not agree on when life should be protected and when life should be taken is perfectly in line with the fact that we disagree on this topic.
Well it is your stated opinion and last I checked it was your opinion that we were considering as being fit for law. It sounds like you don’t think life should be protected unless that life is under the age of zero. Its not that I disagree with you so much as that you disagree with yourself. You have to be 100% one way or the other. Either all life is sacred and only the creator can decide or it’s up to your fellow humans to decide whether you live or not and thus life is subject to the whims of trends and the tyranny of the majority.
Interesting quote on the subjectIf everything that ever lived is dead, and everything that's alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? – George Carlin
We disagree over the legal right to abort babies and we probably disagree over the penalty for adultery. But we agree there is a time to kill and a time to protect. Am I correct?
Is there a time where I would kill to protect? Yes. But then again I’m the same person that’s advocating killing babies. Come on, you’re supposed to be better than some godless provocateur lurking in a forum.
Perhaps you just need some practice. Do you think it is right or wrong to pass judgment?
μη κρινετε ινα μη κριθητε
No personal revelation. Just a small understanding of what He said :)
I don’t think you’ll find any references to abortion in the bible.
The closest I got was this:
15. Cursed be the man who brought the news
To my father, saying,
"A baby boy has been born to you!"
And made him very happy.
16. But let that man be like the cities
Which the LORD overthrew without relenting,
And let him hear an outcry in the morning
And a shout of alarm at noon;
17. Because he did not kill me before birth,
So that my mother would have been my grave,
And her womb ever pregnantHopefully Jeremiah was just kidding...he was under duress at this point.
Is what you say right or wrong? Only for you...
What does that mean?Exactly…
As a side note, on the issue of eugenics. I personally take great pride in marrying an ugly woman of low intelligence just so her DNA will keep on going for another generation.
But seriously, isn't the systemic approach that is modern capitalism denying Gareth's human rights of shelter and sustenance to those who are unable to earn it through their own labour skills, as good as eugenics?
-
Wow. That's a really bizzare summation of the human condition, midnight! It's also not at all an accurate summary of what I have said or in any way a challenge. Would you like to try again?
James. That's an interesting take. I think I agree. How did you find this forum?
-
When was the last time you were wrong, Grant?
-
In all honesty GD I think the length of the post surpassed your threshold of effort required to respond..it may not be my finest hour but I'll accept your surrender :-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.