- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,892
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Biology
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[25][27]
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Ironically, the atheist definition of life is basically the same as creationism, since according to its philosophy, life did not begin until the first human was born.
The abortion debate - Carl Sagan <-- clicky
(there are multiple pages to read - sorry if it's too long for some)
I think Carl Sagan makes some extremely valid and highly intelligent points in this writing.
I love his points that "the right to life" only exists for human life, and only when we define it in terms we like. There are always exceptions to "the rule".
I love that he points out that each sperm and each egg is indeed "alive" - yet for many they are allowed to "die".
He mentions the hypocrisy among many "right-to-lifers" who also want to limit sex education and the availability of birth control.
There's some history of abortion in this piece, and the 4th (last) page is strikingly simple in it's scientific approach.
I know these abortion threads are highly emotional and will never change anyone's mind, but I also think Sagan knocks this out of the park.
So it is not atheism, so is it part of the liberal religion??
Actually, I think the greatest hypocrisy of those against abortion is that they are also for the death penalty and against universal healthcare.
This illustrates how they are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice".
Actually, I think the greatest hypocrisy of those against abortion is that they are also for the death penalty and against universal healthcare.
This illustrates how they are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice".
It isn't as if "the pro-choice" supports letting people have many choices in their lives other than abortion since they want the government to force people to do things.
Please explain exactly what pro-choice people want to force people to do?
Choice means options. Plain and simple.
Force people to buy health insurance would be the obvious starter, followed by <insert everything in the liberal agenda here>
Fisher...I'd say it's time to change your LEAN category to "Conservative".
Forcing people to have health insurance? And that relates to abortion how?
If atheist believe in science and evolution, and life began billions of years ago, then it follow that atheists could not support life a beginning at human birth. This would contradict the claims of evolution, which also says life was a single cell at one time. I was wrong, sorry. So it is not atheism, so is it part of the liberal religion?
I am not a lawyer, but separation of church and state has been extended to secular extensions associated with religion, like the Christmas tree and symbols. Since abortion begins life with the birth of a human, isn't this a secular extension of the teachings in Genesis?
Genesis was the first to come up with life beginning with the birth of Adam, on the second day of creation. If someone whines about this, will the civil liberty lawyers regulate this mythology via the separation of church and state?
I agree, Sam.
I've often argued that many who claimed to be "Pro-life" display a strange sense of what constitutes life after birth. It appears that for many Pro-Lifers - they suddenly adopt a very Darwinistic attitude toward all born individuals, regardless of age, as though once we are born...we're on our own. Quality and quantity of life for all who are born becomes inconsequential for some odd reason.
As I've often stated, we clearly know that despite the number of abortions that have occurred since the very first abortion - the human population continues to increase almost exponentially - and many Pro-Lifers claim that humanity is making "sufficient efforts" to protect and care for born children when we have clear evidence to the contrary.
I don't see Pro-Life arguments being truly about saving a ZEF, but rather trying to continue to employ dark age dogmas, which are geared toward controlling all aspects of a female's life. We see this type of control as a common place practice in Middle Eastern countries, but there is a huge denial that he same attitude exist in Western nations where we are supposedly more civilized.
Yes, and this is made obvious by the fact that so many "pro-life" people will make an exception for rape. Even if they do not like making such an exception, some people make this exception because they know how odious "pro-life" views are to the overwhelming majority (about 80%) if they don't agree to it, yet the difference between rape and other unwanted pregnancy is simply that the woman did not consent to sex. It is so clear that, if the woman consented to sex, those pro-life people want to punish the women rather than save the life of persons, because there is technically no difference between the rape embryo and the non-rape embryo. If you tell them that consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy, they are furious: "She knew the risks," they say.
And the "pro-life" people who don't make an exception for rape often don't even make an exception for the woman's health, not even in cases where, say, she would be permanently paralyzed by continuing the pregnancy. They honestly don't believe that a person has a right to anything but vegetative biological life. Because she had sex, even if coerced. They have no understanding of the degree of hatred of women they communicate unwittingly to others.
Force people to buy health insurance would be the obvious starter, followed by <insert everything in the liberal agenda here>
Hey, I'm pro-choice and I thought the mandatory health insurance thing was a big mistake, even though I recognize that in civilized society, a person who has no health insurance and falls down unconscious in public is a social nuisance, because the society feels obligated to help the person, and, unable to demonstrate spiritual healing, takes the person to the hospital, where somebody has to pay. What we should have implemented was optional low-cost national health insurance for people who could not afford private health insurance. But the insurance companies would have a fit over that, as it would be "bad for business," according to the conservative agenda.
And trust me, conservatives are an extremely important component of the "anti-smoking" movement, just as they were for the "Prohibition" movement. Conservatives are an extremely important part of the "anti-contraceptive" lobby. Conservatives make up the "anti-gay" lobby. Conservatives were the bulk of the anti-ERA forces. Conservatives like to force people to do many, many things and not to do many more. The good thing about liberals is that they pretty much only want your money and don't want your pollution affecting their air, water, and property. Conservatives want to manage your personal body, i.e., your person, and often your mind, speech, and religion, much more private things.
It was a response to a post that liberals do not try to force people to do anything which clearly they do try to force people to do things all the time. I am a libertarian liberal thank you. I do actually support people having choices, including the unborn people who never get a choice at all. It is the mandate in healthcare that I find offensive, not the healthcare itself. Autocratic liberals just simply cannot deal with libertarian liberals pointing out their hypocrisy--"If you are not with us, you are a conservative".
And Liberals want to force me to decide how much to pay and to whom regardless of their talents and contributions, and want to force me to pay people to take months off to have babies and give them a month of vacation to every employee in addition to all of that. Liberals want to force me to give up my guns that have never been used in a crime; the list goes on. I am quite progressive---I am just not into the forcing people to do things. We should provide opportunities, but should not force outcomes for people who willfully refuse to partake in those opportunities.
And Liberals want to force me to decide how much to pay and to whom regardless of their talents and contributions, and want to force me to pay people to take months off to have babies and give them a month of vacation to every employee in addition to all of that. Liberals want to force me to give up my guns that have never been used in a crime; the list goes on. I am quite progressive---I am just not into the forcing people to do things. We should provide opportunities, but should not force outcomes for people who willfully refuse to partake in those opportunities.
Good points, ChoiceOne. They're worth repeating.
Here is what else is worth repeating: The vast majority of abortions are not performed because of rape/incest or to save the life of the mother.
Further, there is a difference between executing an innocent whose only "crime" is being alive and executing a convicted criminal (who, BTW, had legal representation).
And Liberals want to force me to decide how much to pay and to whom regardless of their talents and contributions, and want to force me to pay people to take months off to have babies and give them a month of vacation to every employee in addition to all of that. Liberals want to force me to give up my guns that have never been used in a crime; the list goes on. I am quite progressive---I am just not into the forcing people to do things. We should provide opportunities, but should not force outcomes for people who willfully refuse to partake in those opportunities.
..and yet you want to FORCE all women into continuing a pregnancy even when that pregnancy might do great bodily harm to the woman.not into forcing people to do things.
I am just not into the forcing people to do things. We should provide opportunities, but should not force outcomes
And Liberals want to force me to decide how much to pay and to whom regardless of their talents and contributions, and want to force me to pay people to take months off to have babies and give them a month of vacation to every employee in addition to all of that. Liberals want to force me to give up my guns that have never been used in a crime; the list goes on. I am quite progressive---I am just not into the forcing people to do things. We should provide opportunities, but should not force outcomes for people who willfully refuse to partake in those opportunities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?