|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2006 : 10:11:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yes, but one small minor difference you choose to ignore, the tapeworm is a foreign invader. The baby is flesh of the women's flesh and bone of her bone and was the result of sexual relations, which was the obvious intended procreation mechanism of the deity or NS, take you pick.
I didn't ignore it at all. I considered such an argument and rejected it because a baby has only half of its mother's DNA, and a tapeworm taking up residence in a human host is the obvious intended procreation mechanism (for tapeworms) of the deity or NS, take your pick.quote:
Now please tell me again how a tick jumping out of a tree and attaching itself to my head has anything at all to do with the reproduction process of a women put in place by the deity, or NS, take your pick?
It's like this: you chose to go into the woods of your own accord, despite knowing that ticks live there. You may even have worn a hat and/or used repellant to keep the ticks away. Despite your precautions, a tick latched onto you, anyway. You and the tick share some percentage of DNA, and so even though you opt to view it as "a foreign invader," it's actually related to you and an important part of the "web of life" on this planet. Killing the tick would therefore be a wholly selfish act, disrespecting of the tick's right to life (and if you believe so, an act against God's Divine Will, since He obviously created ticks so that they are able and willing to feed off humans). The only rational response under such conditions is to let the tick feed as long as it wants, and carefully return it to the forest when it is finished. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 10:14:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by verso
quote:
Because an unborn child is a parasite on the mother, therefore the mother's right must also be taken into consideration. Since there is nothing ambiguous about her personhood, and since our society gives people rights over what happens to their body, her unambiguously-based rights trump the unborn's.
How many parasites are created by their hosts?
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Analogously, if you happen to get a tapeworm while vacationing in the tropics, then that parasite is a life that you took responsibility for when you went on vacation. It may not be human, but it's still alive.
In other words, I see very little difference, given your logic, between a tapeworm and a human zygote. They are both the result of known-to-be-risky activitites that the participants willingly engaged in.
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
I DO see a difference between a tapeworm and a human zygote. It's similiar to the difference I see between - say - you and an ape.
Kil:
quote:
You know what? And I realize that this is yet another example of my grasp of the obvious and probably doesn't really need to be said, but this is a religious argument, plain and simple. Bill, verso and Robb believe that a human soul may be residing in the glob of jelly. And that's that. There is certainly no reason to think it's human based on its physiology. Science be damned. It's human. To them there is more to the brainless voices calling out for protection, because a brainless voice is not possible. They are protecting a soul.
I'm impressed. You seem to know more about me than I know about myself.
Edit: Clarified quote authorship |
| Edited by - verso on 03/10/2006 10:17:29 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 11:09:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
verso:
I'm impressed. You seem to know more about me than I know about myself.
quote:
verso:
The most innocent and helpless group of people...
You are calling a just fertilized egg, people. There is no physiological justification for that. It may have the potential to grow into a person, but how exactly is that glob people?
I can think of no justification for calling a glob people other than a religious one. Correct me if I'm wrong…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
I DO see a difference between a tapeworm and a human zygote. It's similiar to the difference I see between - say - you and an ape.
Yes, and apparently my reductio was too subtle. Why, exactly, do you, verso (and you, Bill) value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:40:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yes, but one small minor difference you choose to ignore, the tapeworm is a foreign invader. The baby is flesh of the women's flesh and bone of her bone and was the result of sexual relations, which was the obvious intended procreation mechanism of the deity or NS, take you pick.
I didn't ignore it at all. I considered such an argument and rejected it because a baby has only half of its mother's DNA, and a tapeworm taking up residence in a human host is the obvious intended procreation mechanism (for tapeworms) of the deity or NS, take your pick.quote:
Now please tell me again how a tick jumping out of a tree and attaching itself to my head has anything at all to do with the reproduction process of a women put in place by the deity, or NS, take your pick?
It's like this: you chose to go into the woods of your own accord, despite knowing that ticks live there. You may even have worn a hat and/or used repellant to keep the ticks away. Despite your precautions, a tick latched onto you, anyway. You and the tick share some percentage of DNA, and so even though you opt to view it as "a foreign invader," it's actually related to you and an important part of the "web of life" on this planet. Killing the tick would therefore be a wholly selfish act, disrespecting of the tick's right to life (and if you believe so, an act against God's Divine Will, since He obviously created ticks so that they are able and willing to feed off humans). The only rational response under such conditions is to let the tick feed as long as it wants, and carefully return it to the forest when it is finished.
quote:
I didn't ignore it at all. I considered such an argument and rejected it because a baby has only half of its mother's DNA,
(bill) So even though it is clear that the intent of the deity, or the results of natural selection, were for a women to carry a baby to term as a result of sexual relations, and this was the intended procreation mechanism of the creative agent, Dave has concluded that the child is rather a "parasite" on the mother based the sole fact that the baby has only half it's mother's DNA. So according to Dave the baby is a "parasite" unless it has 100% of it's mothers DNA, which is not how the deity or NS concluded that the procreation mechanism for humans would work. The design intent of the deity or the results of NS intended for the new being to be produced with the DNA from mother and father. So since it was the intent of the deity, or the results of natural selection of course the baby will never have 100% of mothers DNA, so according to Dave all babies, including himself are/were nothing but a parasite. I love how Dave trumps the deity or natural selection and declares (just because) that the child has to have 100% of mothers DNA or it is a parasite. Say's who? Says Dave. What a total grasp for straws.
quote:
and a tapeworm taking up residence in a human host is the obvious intended procreation mechanism (for tapeworms) of the deity or NS, take your pick.
(bill) But it was also the intent of the deity or NS, to give the human hands and fingers and a brain to be able to use and remove the parasite from said head. Just as it was the intent of the deity or NS for the procreation mechanism of humans to be sexual relations where the egg is fertilized and DNA of the couple is mixed resulting in a new human being where the mother is to carry the baby or parasite, take your pick, to a term where it can sustain it's own existence. See Dave your obvious problem with the women carrying the child to term is not with me, as I had nothing to do with the final decision on the procreation mechanism with the human race. Your obvious problem is with the deity or NS, whoever you subscribe to as the creative agent. And I conclude that you have a problem with thim by your insistence to call a baby human a parasite, in spite of this being the obvious intent of the deity or NS, take your pick.
quote:
It's like this: you chose to go into the woods of your own accord, despite knowing that ticks live there. You may even have worn a hat and/or used repellant to keep the ticks away. Despite your precautions, a tick latched onto you, anyway. You and the tick share some percentage of DNA,
(bill) No Dave, that's your arbitrary opinion that we share DNA with ticks. And you base that opinion on your belief and faith in neo-Darwinian evolutionary philosophy as gospel truth. I find your notion that you and I share DNA with ticks to be laughable to the infinite degree.
quote:
and so even though you opt to view it as "a foreign invader," it's actually related to you and an important part of the "web of life" on this planet.
(bill) 1. If my distant relative, the tick parasite, is so important to me through the web of life then just imagine how import the human parasite is to me in the whole web of life thing. But yet dude, marf, wendy and you would like to just kill it. Take a lighter and burn the tick off and that is a crime on my distant relatives, or take scalpel and impale the baby in it's mothers whom and this is just fine. I think not, Dave
2. This is your arbitrary opinion based on your belief and your faith in the neo-Darwinian philosophy of molecules to man evolution where ticks and men share common ancestors. Actually I would say this is a fairytale before I would even label it opinion.
quote:
Killing the tick would therefore be a wholly selfish act, disrespecting of the tick's right to life
(bill) If that is your conclusion then knock yourself out. Me, I am burning any tick I see with a lighter. I might even dump some salt on them just to be cruel. I sure hope I am not related to one of them though. Burning them with a lighter to the point of death might get me kicked out of the will and banned from any future family reunions.
quote:
(and if you believe so, an act against God's Divine Will, since He obviously created ticks so that they are able and willing to feed off humans).< |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
verso:
I'm impressed. You seem to know more about me than I know about myself.
quote:
verso:
The most innocent and helpless group of people...
You are calling a just fertilized egg, people. There is no physiological justification for that. It may have the potential to grow into a person, but how exactly is that glob people?
I can think of no justification for calling a glob people other than a religious one. Correct me if I'm wrong…
quote:
You are calling a just fertilized egg, people. There is no physiological justification for that. It may have the potential to grow into a person, but how exactly is that glob people?
(bill) The deity or NS dictated that the procreation mechanism would be that of man/women coming together in sexual relations. A result of these relations will be the man's sperm and female egg form the foundation of the new life. At the point of conception that DNA makeup for said being is established and so has individual ID as the DNA from mum and dad will be used to guide the baby human from here on out. This was the design intent of the deity or the results of NS, so if you don't like it don't complain to me. So I would like to know how you conclude this is not people?
quote:
I can think of no justification for calling a glob people other than a religious one. Correct me if I'm wrong…
(bill) I just did. And just because you refer to human in their most infant stages a blob makes it no less a human. It is the offspring of sexual relations between man/women just as the deity or NS had indented. What do think it is? A parasitic tick growing inside the women? *sigh*
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:14:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Well it kind of is - no it is definitely not and no you can't say that for sure.quote:
Originally posted by kil
You know what? And I realize that this is yet another example of my grasp of the obvious and probably doesn't really need to be said, but this is a religious argument, plain and simple. Bill, verso and Robb believe that a human soul may be residing in the glob of jelly. And that's that. There is certainly no reason to think it's human based on its physiology. Science be damned. It's human. To them there is more to the brainless voices calling out for protection, because a brainless voice is not possible. They are protecting a soul.
In that case all that Bill, verso, Robb and others have to do is to first show that souls exist and then that fetuses possess them. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:48:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So even though it is clear that the intent of the deity, or the results of natural selection, were for a women to carry a baby to term as a result of sexual relations...
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.quote:
Dave has concluded that the child is rather a "parasite" on the mother based the sole fact that the baby has only half it's mother's DNA.
No, I never concluded any such thing, you just didn't understand my argument.quote:
On one hand you say kill the human parasite...
When have I said any such thing, you liar?
Since my point was far too subtle for you to understand (as is obvious), I'll ask again: why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 14:39:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So even though it is clear that the intent of the deity, or the results of natural selection, were for a women to carry a baby to term as a result of sexual relations...
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.quote:
Dave has concluded that the child is rather a "parasite" on the mother based the sole fact that the baby has only half it's mother's DNA.
No, I never concluded any such thing, you just didn't understand my argument.quote:
On one hand you say kill the human parasite...
When have I said any such thing, you liar?
Since my point was far too subtle for you to understand (as is obvious), I'll ask again: why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
quote:
Dave has concluded that the child is rather a "parasite" on the mother based the sole fact that the baby has only half it's mother's DNA.
No, I never concluded any such thing, you just didn't understand my argument.
(bill) So what percent of mums DNA does the baby have to have before you no longer consider it a parasite, Dave?
quote:
On one hand you say kill the human parasite...
When have I said any such thing, you liar?
(bill) I am sorry Dave, I thought you were in favor of abortion on demand, because that is what happens in abortions, Dave. The "doctor" goes in and impales the little parasite for having the nerve to depend on it's mother for nutrition in it's first 9 months or so of life. It was the design of the deity, or the results of NS, for it to be this way and the little "parasite" who just wants to live had no part in designing this mechanism, Dave.
My 4 month old daughter is breast feeding from my wife and is dependent on this for her very existence. Is my 4 month old still a parasite, Dave?
quote:
Since my point was far too subtle for you to understand (as is obvious), I'll ask again: why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?
(bill) Why do we have laws that forbid us to kill another man, but allow us to shoot pesky varmints such as coyotes or such? Do you agree that is wrong to kill a man while it is ok to kill pesky varmint? Or do think there is no difference in shooting another man then in shooting a coyote, Dave?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 14:55:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am sorry Dave, I thought you were in favor of abortion on demand...
You didn't even ask, did you?quote:
...because that is what happens in abortions, Dave. The "doctor" goes in and impales the little parasite for having the nerve to depend on it's mother for nutrition in it's first 9 months or so of life. It was the design of the deity, or the results of NS, for it to be this way and the little "parasite" who just wants to live had no part in designing this mechanism, Dave.
And how is it that you know that the deity intended no abortions whatsoever? It's rather obvious that natural selection gave us the capabilities to perform them, after all, so that part is a dead-end to your argument.quote:
quote:
Since my point was far too subtle for you to understand (as is obvious), I'll ask again: why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?
Why do we have laws that forbid us to kill another man, but allow us to shoot pesky varmints such as coyotes or such? Do you agree that is wrong to kill a man while it is ok to kill pesky varmint? Or do think there is no difference in shooting another man then in shooting a coyote, Dave?
Why can't you just answer the question, Bill? Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? I'm not asking about laws, and I'm not asking about what you think that I think - I'm asking about what you think. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 14:55:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill:
(bill) And just because you refer to human in their most infant stages a blob makes it no less a human. It is the offspring of sexual relations between man/women just as the deity or NS had indented. What do think it is?
Bill, a potential human is not a human. And again, the only justification for calling it a person, which it clearly isn't yet, is a religious one. You can talk about the purpose of a deity or natural selection and the outcome of a successful pregnancy until the cows come home but physiologically that glob is still not a person anymore than a fertile seed is a tree.
Why don't you just admit that your motivation for calling a glob of dividing cells a person is because of your religious beliefs and stop trying to use science to justify your claim? Potential is not synonymous with realized. The fertile egg I had for breakfast was an egg and not a chicken breast sandwich…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 16:03:09 [Permalink]
|
In nature, a female will defend her litter, brood, clutch, whatever only up to a point, then she will abandon them to their fate. Fighting to the death in their support is very rare. This makes perfect evolutionary sense. The adult has been proven fertile and by definition, a survivor, and therefore more valuable to her species than her untested offspring.
Just thought I'd throw that in....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 16:22:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by verso
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
I DO see a difference between a tapeworm and a human zygote. It's similiar to the difference I see between - say - you and an ape.
Yes, and apparently my reductio was too subtle. Why, exactly, do you, verso (and you, Bill) value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?
Maybe I am still missing your point, but as I understand it, your reductio was based on a flawed analogy, as a tapeworm's life doesn't compare to a human's. Or was the point of the analogy to bring up the question of "why is a tapeworm's life less valuable than a human's?
Hmm. To be honest, I have never really thought about it from a secular standpoint. Why DO we (or the vast majority of people) value human life over other life? Maybe it's instinctual. Maybe it's cultural.
I can tell you that - as a child, before I had established any religion-based perspective on the topic (or anything, for that matter), given the choice between saving the life of a dog and saving the life of a human, the dog would never have entered my mind as an option.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 16:27:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
...it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Show me evidence that a zygote is a "person". I consider this appeal to emotion null-and-void.
quote:
Second - to me there is nothing ambiguous about the embryo's personhood - and that person's right to life outweighs the mothers right to not have the child.
I grant you your view, however, I do not grant you the right to judge what is right, and definitly not that a zygote qualifies for personhood.
quote:
Sarcastic rhetoric aside - we both know why both "parties" are so keen on using those rare cases - they are emotionally charged situations, and each side is guilty of trying to exploit that charge.
I can see that you are not above utilizing such tactics. If you blame anyone on the pro-choice side for it, you're no more than a hypocrit among the others.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 16:54:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by verso
...it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Show me evidence that a zygote is a "person". I consider this appeal to emotion null-and-void.
quote:
Second - to me there is nothing ambiguous about the embryo's personhood - and that person's right to life outweighs the mothers right to not have the child.
I grant you your view, however, I do not grant you the right to judge what is right, and definitly not that a zygote qualifies for personhood.
quote:
Sarcastic rhetoric aside - we both know why both "parties" are so keen on using those rare cases - they are emotionally charged situations, and each side is guilty of trying to exploit that charge.
I can see that you are not above utilizing such tactics. If you blame anyone on the pro-choice side for it, you're no more than a hypocrit among the others.
Did I blame someone? No, I acknowledged it as a emotional tactic, and very specifically mentioned that I don't want it in this discussion. So I'm not sure what you're going on about.
To say that my calling the zygote a person is an emotional appeal is silly. It's not an appeal, it's the point. It's why I'm involved in this discussion at all - because I believe it is a person.
Why do I believe it is a person?
It is unclear to me when personhood begins. This is actually an issue my wife and I have come up to recently, in choosing birth control. I have always felt it was at conception - then I came upon the "twinning" argument in my research, and that has caused me to re-evaluate my position.
However - until this is clarified in my mind beyond any doubt, I will assume it is at conception, because I would hate to be guilty of quashing another human's right to life. And if it is not at conception, then at the moment I believe I will default to implantation, because at that point, in my fundamental-but-growing knowledge on the subject, that is when the embryo becomes what it will be for the rest of it's life.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
