Abortion debate continuing

Some posts today to the ASOs. The conversation was hijacked a bit.



April 25, 2011 1:21 AM

madman fred said...
Definition 1b: "being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains."

You couldn't have meant this as your definition. Just in case, "The right to life is determined by the number of charge carriers a human being can call their own . . ." Okay, end sarcasm. To the next definition.

2. a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part — compare EXTRINSIC 1b

So, if this is your definition you must be saying, "The right to life originates within the organs of the body, and if human life begins at conception, yet it has no organs and no body, then I'm totally mystified and don't know what I'm talking about."

Yes, I think most people would agree with you, but just because the word "intrinsic" sounds so cool, and like both of us, they really think rights are very important.

And that's the only thing I think Jefferson was saying, to paraphrase, "We take rights very seriously."
April 25, 2011 1:41 AM

madman fred said...
"For your criticism to go through, you have to maintain that it is impossible for a Christian theist to explain twinning in a consistent fashion."

No, I wasn't making any point about a "Christian theist" (waxing redundant). I was saying that twinning is inconsistent with the proposition that this would be a human individual at conception, a complete entity due to being genetically diploid, and yet turn so easily into two separate, independent individuals-- with the same set of genes you say make it a complete human being. If it can be two people after conception, it can easily be zero for sometime afterward. Of course you don't claim to know how ensoulment works, but in my opinion, if you don't have a working brain, ensoulment is your only argument. In fact, I think the rest of what you say is bullshit and ensoulment is the real reason why you insist life begins at conception. Because if God isn't involved with creating a baby in the womb, then he's really nowhere at all, but now that scientific instruments have detected nothing like God doing the work, so your left to insist on sacredness and humbleness about it, because if you look close enough to become blasphemous, God isn't there.
April 25, 2011 1:58 AM

madman fred said...
Too tired, will have to answer the rest tomorrow.
April 25, 2011 2:10 AM

Rhology said...
MMF said:
you are using intrinsic in a way inconsistent with any scientific argument for life

I'd like to ask you to consider that you are committing a category error here. Science has no access to the question of rights or value. Science deals with what IS in terms of nature, material, and energy. It can tell us nothing of what OUGHT to be, like how one ought to treat others.

If you think The Chemist hasn't defined "intrinsic", then I think you need to read his original post again, b/c he already discussed that. If you want more info, see here too.
April 25, 2011 7:33 AM

kat said...
The chemist
It is only after a single spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine that a unique individual is formed with his or her own life trajectory. This diploid cell is the first instance where that cell has a complete genetic code.

There is NO "unique individual" UNLESS the spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine.
You can defend your position on when life begins with genetic codes and DNA scenarios all you want but you have to have the spermatozoon and a single oocyte to COMBINE before you get either.
April 25, 2011 7:53 AM

Rhology said...
kat,

Has any abolitionist argued otherwise?
April 25, 2011 7:55 AM

madman fred said...
To Rhology:

What definition? Do you think I should use whatever one exempts Christianity? Or do you think it's unfair that I apply the standard of judgment on what's a cult to Christianity, too?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, it's a duck not a bald eagle.

I guess you could argue that Christianity should be exempt from that category because it's the one true religion. There's no evidence of that outside of Christian "belief in's" which are necessary to the faith, and every other cult says that their beliefs and practices.
April 25, 2011 1:01 PM

Rhology said...
Hello mmf,

I was hoping to get the definition of "cult" that you're using.
Your "duck, eagle" comment assumes that you have a definition for "duck" and "eagle" from which you draw your identifying information beforehand.

Feel free to keep giving us your unsupported opinion if you like, but I asked a specific question and would appreciate an answer.
April 25, 2011 1:07 PM

madman fred said...
To ASO,

Sorry about the forgotten attributions. To add to my last post regarding twinning: if you don't know it's two people at conception, you can't possibly know it's one person at conception. You will be as surprised at it ending up being twins or triplets and any of those not purportedly armed with your "scientific knowledge."

The "science" is just the excuse. Your whole reason for saying life begins at conception is that it's necessary for you to believe it if you're going to keep your faith. As a Christian, your sworn and committed to doing that above all else, even if to do it you have to throw yourself into ignorance.
April 25, 2011 1:08 PM

madman fred said...
To Rhology:

In no way make a category error or any other. First, he doesn't define "intrinsic" in the article you cited. He uses the word only once and that's to say intrinsic rights aren't mentioned in the Bible. The only definition he gave was in these posts. Why do you send me to an article almost totally irrelevant to your point? I have to wonder if you read the Bible with that kind of comprehension. It must help you keep your faith.

Second, he's the one who has claimed that his arguments about whether the fetus is alive and a human being are based on science. I simply took his argument on the basis of the claim he's making.

Third, if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality. I think that's an extremely weak premise to have if just declare it and give no evidence of it.

Fourth, two of the three definitions he gives in his answers to me are scientific or highly technical.

Fifth, I plugged all of them into his argument to see if they made sense. If it's a logical argument, then the method is scientific, and so I held him to it.

The first and only non-scientific definition, as I said, utterly reverses the arrow of inference on his argument. If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.

Conclusion: he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being. The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument, but antichoicers have it in their heads that this is a rights issue, that some evil makes prochoicers want to deprive people of rights, not something generally consistent in the rest of our lives.

No, it's an issue of whether something that has no body and most importantly, has no brain, is actually a human being. On scientific grounds, no. It doesn't matter what you have to say about how we should treat others. There's nobody there to be treated any way.
April 25, 2011 1:43 PM

Rhology said...
Hi mmf,

I sent you to my article b/c it defines rights. It was my attempt to help you understand where we're coming from. I'd like to ask you to consider that you need to take one of two tracks here:
1) Criticise the biblical view from the inside. This will require that you properly understand and correctly represent the Bible's teaching.
2) Criticise it from the outside. This will require that you give us some reason to think that your position has any meaningful basis for human rights at all, so that you can tell us that they're not from conception but are somehow acquired somewhere else. So far I can't see you've done either, so hopefully this will guide you.

Yes, he did claim the fetus is alive. But more than that, he said the fetus is HUMAN.
Who would dispute the fetus is alive? I think you mean to dispute that the fetus is human, right? Let me ask you to be more careful and specific in the future.


You said:
if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.

Not physical. Far from it.
And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument.


If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.

But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there.


he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I think you've merely misunderstood.


While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being

True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point.
Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both.


The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument

I disagree, since we're talking about whether it's OK to kill fetuses, which may or may not be human.


There's nobody there to be treated any way.

thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.

Peace,
Rhology
April 25, 2011 1:51 PM

madman fred said...
To Rhology,

Believe it or not, I don't like definitional arguments, they are wearisome, and it doesn't look like it, but I don't have a lot of time. It's not like "cult" has any remote, technical or scientific meaning that can confuse you.

So, with great difficulty, I'm typing out the Webster's New World College Dictionary defintion:

Cult: 1 a)a system of religious worship or ritual b) a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs 2 a) devoted attachment to, or extravagant admirition for a person, a principle, or a lifestyle, esp. when regarded as a fad b) the object of such attachment 3) a group of followers; sect.

I edited out the examples given.

I meant 1a most of all, but how many others fit? The second, 1b doesn't usually apply to Christianity now (except for examples like Jim Jones and David Koresh, and others abound), but it definitely applied to Christianity when it started.

Except for the "usually a fad part," 2a fits as much as it does for Trekkers. 2b applies, (Christ Cult). And as for 3 it applies to.

So, if you could get Christianity out of being a cult, I want you as my lawyer.
April 25, 2011 2:10 PM

madman fred said...
To Rhology,

It might not look like it, but I already know where you think you're coming from. Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations, and that a follower learns to lie to herself and then lie to others to perpetuate it, I usually don't have the patience to take a dose of it just to be polite and find out more of what I already know.

You say your trying to guide me. My version is your trying to manipulate me. I know it feels to you like you're being polite and helpful and I'm being insulting, but really, why should I be scolded and told to meet YOUR standards of proper argument? If you ask me, it's bait to try to hook and convert me into your worldview while you won't give one inch.

"'if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.'"

"Not physical. Far from it."

My point exactly, except the meaning of it flies right over your head.

"And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument."

But you see, my point was that his logic fails because he reversed the arrow of inference. Apparently, you don't know what I'm talking about, and you're not qualified to make any logical judgments.

"'If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.'"

"But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there."

And you're not only utterly lost here, but you're perfectly arrogant about it. No there's absolutely no disconnect in my head, but "ignorant and proud of it" begins to look like a good description of yours.

"'he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.'"

"I think you've merely misunderstood."

What? How could I after he gave me that definition of "intrinsic?" No, I do understand, for reasons that you missed. Though, I'll say if he's misleading, though, he's misled himself too, which means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
April 25, 2011 2:36 PM

madman fred said...
To Rhology,

"'While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being'"

"True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point."

Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic. It's like the ignorant teaching the vegetables.

"Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both."

And these two points are even more irrelevant than rights. I could see you want the abortion argument even more cluttered than it already is.

"There's nobody there to be treated any way."

thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.

You see it as an assertion only because you did not comprehend the rest of what I wrote. So, now you want me to waste more time with an argument you'll understand even less?

You'll see me in Heaven or Hell first.

Which means "never" by the way.
April 25, 2011 2:58 PM

Rhology said...
Hi mmf,

Re: your 1a) definition of "cult", I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant assertion on your part. This fits the classical definition of "cult", taken from the Latin. Its classical meaning is pretty close to the modern French "culte", which simply refers to a worship service. Ie, "the cult of Mary", which refers to people who venerate Mary (but who would never admit to worshiping her).

So, I'm sorry, but this "cult" discussion is groundless, and further, making "cult" = "a religious system", then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a "cult". Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a "cult" does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church.


You said:
Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations

OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that "given". Which is not given at all.

The rest of your commentary is bloviating that fails to advance much of anything.
Then there's this one gem:
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic.

The Chemist has a PhD in chemistry and teaches at a university. What do you have besides a couple of barely-begun blogs, O anonymous commenter?


Peace,
Rhology
April 25, 2011 3:06 PM

madman fred said...
"So, I'm sorry, but this 'cult' discussion is groundless, and further, making 'cult; = 'a religious system', then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a 'cult'. Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a 'cult' does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church."

I didn't "drain the meaning" of it, an odd accusation since you can see I followed the EXACT ENGLISH definitions of "cult."

I notice you didn't dispute that. If the definition is too broad, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

So you've shown that you could deny the very meaning of the words out of a dictionary definition in front of you to keep your belief, (exactly what I'd expect in a cult-follower) and blame the sinful heathen when he cooperated but things didn't go your way, even though it was your idea.

Strange how you call this "meaningless" after you needled me for the meaning of cult, too lazy to look it up yourself. Hey, I didn't want to go there, remember? I didn't think it was that significant, remember? So, now it's my fault for making it too meaningful. The religious mind at work again.

I AM saying that every single social religious belief system IS a cult, and since you didn't notice, the Methodists are Christians, so you needn't inform me that I meant them, too.

You're doing exactly what I thought you would do if you knew: finding reasons why it's too broad if applied to Christianity, too, or finding reasons why it can't apply to Christianity. I knew this before I provided it.

Hilarious, now that the English language has utterly failed you, you're falling back on other languages for help. Don't tell me what it means in other languages unless your native tongue is Latin, Greek or French and you need an explanation about English.

None of the origin applies here. I don't care what they meant in Latin, Greek or Anatolian then, nor what the French, Russian or Gallic mean now. As interesting as the word origins are, they have no authority over the modern English language. None.

Plus, you knew what I meant when I said it, in our native tongue you just thought the dictionary wouldn't support me.

Can't you just feel insulted and leave it?

"OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that 'given.' Which is not given at all."

Of course if you dispute the fact, but I'll tell you, like any cult member, you have to be de-programmed first. You don't really see what's wrong with it or almost all of the dirty deeds until you don't feel the obligation to believe in it anymore. I know that's not going to happen with you, especially by my arguing it. Faith is the art of enforced, selective blindness.

Which is why I simply declare my position about Christianity and don't argue it. You argue with the religious mind, it simply digs in deeper.

As for the Chemist, some scientists, including Nobel winners, have been shown to be complete ignoramuses outside their fields. That especially applies if you've damaged your thinking with Christianity. Then you have to cordon off your knowledge.

I'll remember to respect the Chemist when he writes about electron shells, ions and valence electrons. Unless he has a degree in embryology and bioscience we're on even ground there.

Whereas I have the advantage with nuclear physics.
April 25, 2011 4:43 PM