The only reason you wish to turn this discussion into one of theology is because you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology.Finally, while Fantasea refuses to consider the question of what REALLY defines a person, such that it can be Universally applied, I think it would be entertaining to mention the following logic:
1. Many humans believe an entity exists which they call "God"
2. Some believe God created both humans and the Earth (called "Terra" in Latin)
(I suspect this group includes most of the most-dedicated of the anti-abortion crowd, due to religious beliefs. This group of humans is relevant below. Please note that I do not include Fantasea in it, due to lack of data.)
3. If God created humans, then God cannot be a human.
4. If God created Terra, then God must be extra-terrestrial in origin.
5. If "persons" are limited to humans only, then God is not a person.
Therefore I conclude that everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person, needs to do something about the definition of "person".
After which, heh heh heh, I tend to think that NO unborn human will EVER qualify -- and the abortion debate, with that group at least, can Officially End.
Certain truths are self-evident; among them that human life, in every stage, is superior to any other form of life whether animal, vegetable, or as you are fond of mentioning, from time to time, alien. If you disagree, kindly cite a few legitimate sources to substantiate your claim.Fantasea wrote: "Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is."
Futureincoming wrote: "
As before, you continue to be illogical.
1. Humans CLAIM to be special.
2. Humans CLAIM a right to life based on 1.
3. When asked the nature of the specialness claimed in 1., the answer is "brainpower".
The conundrum begins when humans lacking brainpower are considered.
4. The corollary of 3. is that humans lacking brainpower cannot be special.
5. The corollary of 2. is that a right to life cannot be claimed for nonspecial humans.
That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible."
I have previously shown you evidence that at the legislatures of at least twenty states plus the federal government have codified the existence of the unborn child. Since you choose to ignore this, any hypocrisy regarding unborn children is solely yours.Fantasea wrote: "My sole claim is the biological fact that the product of conception is a living, growing, developing, unborn human child.
FutureIncoming replies: "I do not dispute THAT statement at all, EXCEPT for the hypocrisy associated with improperly including the word "child".
Earlier, someone, perhaps you, accused me of resorting to circular logic. What you have written above goes far beyond simple circular logic. It more closely resembles a spiral staircase.Fantasea wrote: "You have, thus far, chosen to try to bend, twist, and contort that biological fact into something which it is not. You have been unsuccessful because facts are resilient. They always spring back to their origins."
FutureIncoming replies: "You are mistaking my efforts. I am not trying to contort any biological facts. I am discussing aspects of the notion that just because human life happens to exist, that does not mean it MATTERS, objectively. And even subjectively with respect to humans, where human life can logically be expected to matter, that does not mean it matters everywhere and all the time. So far YOU have failed to provide any evidence indicating that human life matters objectively, OR that among humans it actually matters everywhere and all the time. So far as I can see, you are claiming that certain human lives matter only because you can financially benefit from their suffering. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"
I take this as an admission that you are unable to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim.Fantasea wrote: "I have asked you to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim. You have not done so and consistently lean on the Roe v. Wade opinion."
FutureIncoming replies: "Since I have not made any claims that distort human biology, I do not need to furnish any facts in support of non-existent claims. To the extent that I have referenced Roe vs. Wade, that is simply because it IS relevant to a discussion about when human life MATTERS to humans."
FutureIncoming said:To Busta:
From the strewn-out messages that steen has posted, I gather that this is what he is talking about:
When sperm fertilizes ovum, a hydatidiform mole may result, instead of a normal zygote. It is apparently able to do cell-division and attach to the uterus to obtain nutrients, just like a normal zygote. It is able to grow to some arbitrary size before the woman's body notices that it is not hosting a normal embryo or fetus, and that is when the hydatidiform mole is expelled/"born" (but I personally think the whole topic is just another variant of genetic machinery gone awry, such as can lead to an ordinary miscarriage).
With that as the background, look at the basic pro-life definition of "person", as supplied by Fantasea: "A living growing organism having human DNA" -- or words to that effect. And steen has indicated that in the very early stages of growth, there is no way to tell the difference between mole and embryo. The basic definition of "person" therefore declares that a hydatidiform mole must be called a person. Now, Fantasea has also more recently tried to include a specification that the human organism be able to grow into a child -- but does he realize that such a definition would EXCLUDE human adults?
Haw, haw, haw!!!
Fantasea quoted: "Well, there are Scenarios and then there are Scenarios.
What I have noticed is that in countries in which people are free to engage in business and commerce with minimal governmental interference and reasonable taxation, the natural economic laws operate to raise the living standards of all who wish to avail themselves of the extant opportunities to participate. Barring disability, those who decide to opt out get exactly that to which they are entitled.Can you agree that any Scenario in which population rises in exact synchronization with production-of-goods is perfectly equivalent to the initially static Scenario above? If so, can you then agree that WHENEVER population happens to rise faster than goods-production (regardless of whether the cause be a spurt in population growth or a breakdown in production), then wages tend to suffer and prices tend to rise? Have you noticed the Historical tendency for businesses to seek to monopolize a market, just so goods-production can be restricted to the highest-profit-margin point? And have you noticed that when one company buys out another, the total number of jobs always goes down?"
The use of the word ‘irrespective” indicates I have noted your comments and consider them to be outweighed by mine.FutureIncoming replies: "How interesting that you chose to begin your remarks with "irrespective", thereby indicating you want to ignore what you quoted, as if no facts were present. Anyway, the US is not a simple Scenario. You are comparing apples and oranges. I will clarify, however the quoted thing I wrote about jobs. I was referring to the total jobs that previously existed within the two companies, before one bought the other. Some of the employees will have to compete for the retained jobs.Fantasea wrote: "Irrespective of all you have written, consider this. The number of jobs in the US continues to increase. The living standard in the US continues to increase. The life expectancy in the US continues to increase."
In the grand scheme, (an expression I am borrowing) it’s up to workers to prepare themselves, apply themselves diligently and make themselves desirable. If they do, they are either the ones who are retained or who quickly find equal or better employment elsewhere.Something you wrote in a prior message, about how a good worker doesn't need a Minimum Wage, doesn't always ring true when the Law of Supply and Demand is added. In the situation where an acquired company dumps some workers, it is easy to think that some of those workers were as competent as the ones who were retained. So, which will the company prefer to keep, when competency is equivalent? Ignoring seniority, the answer is, "the ones who will accept the lesser wage!!!" THAT's what I meant when I wrote (not quoted here) something about how extra people puts pressure on wages, to drop.
I don’t believe that prices and wages are the true test. The true test is the standard of living enabled by working. For example, in many countries, one can never improve his standard above subsistence or climb the economic ladder, while in the US, within reason, the limits are self-imposed.I should apologize for not mentioning that the Scenarios I described had inflation deliberately excluded from them; I simply forgot to actually say so. Thank you for accepting it as an assumption (by also not saying anything). In the ordinary world, of course, wages don't go down all that often, because of inflation. But if the Scenarios had included inflation, then I would have written something like, "prices would go up at a rate in comparison to which inflating-of-wages is left behind", or "overall buying power goes down".
Are you arguing the case for socialism? It would seem so.FutureIncoming replies: "Generally true, but that is not what a Minimum Wage is about. It is about the fact that if someone gets a job, the employer generally wants the employee to BE ABLE to show up as scheduled. How is this physically possible if the job pays a wage so low that the basics cannot be met? It seems to me that if {A} "Human Life Is Valuable", then the wage should be able to cover the basics. But if {B} "Human Life is Not Valuable", then the logical things for an employer to do are (1) Pay as tiny a wage as possible, (2) Say to the starving employee who requests a raise, "There's plenty more where YOU came from, who'd be glad to have your job!", and (3) Actively oppose abortion, to help ensure that plenty more people enter the competition for jobs, and allowing continuation of policies (1) and (2).Fantasea wrote: "Two incomes are required to afford two new cars, multiple cell phones, homes, furnishings, clothing, and, in general, a preferred lifestyle far above the basics."
Guess which of {A} or {B} that employers seem to be seeking to do the most, out there in today's economy.
You simply attempted to swap the use of the attributes of the word "privilege" for the attributes of the word "right", ignoring the essential differences between the words.FutureIncoming said:Fantasea quoted: 'Next, it is actually a true fact that you are still hypocritically putting the word "child" in a sentence where it does not belong. It is also actually a true fact that you are continuing to make an unproved claim (the sentence that includes the phrase "absolute right"). It is also actually a true fact that human rights are associated with human abilities. For example, it is actually a true fact that young children do not have the right or priviledge to drive an automobile. And it is actually a true fact that unborn humans do not have an inherent right to live, if for no other reason than: It is actually a true fact that even fully adult humans do not have an inherent right to live; otherwise many myriads of adults would not have been killed by a tsunami in Descember 2004. The so-called "right to live" is actually in truth and fact just a convenient fiction and priviledge that various humans have granted to various other humans. And finally, YOU actually and in true fact have no right to arbitrarily by-fiat replace one set of human priviledges with another, especially when you would be giving more privileges to the incapable than to the capable. Haven't you learned that privileges are usually EARNED, not granted?
Now, if you should possibly happen to decide that any of the sentences in the previous paragraph is less than complete truth, then you had better be able to explain in detail, supported by actual true facts."
Fantasea wrote: 'First, your use of the word “true” as an adjective modifier for the word “fact” is superfluous since a fact is inherently true. Or, perhaps, you know of some “false” facts which you would care to share.
FutureIncoming replied: "... you are quibbling. Complaining about the way I chose to express certain facts in no way counts as evidence that the statements are false."
Fantasea responed: "It is obvious that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "quibble"."
FutureIncoming quotes from www.dictionary.com: "quibble: 1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections."
FutureIncoming also writes: "It may indeed be superfluous to describe something as "true fact" instead of simply as "fact", but IT IS INDEED A QUIBBLE to focus on the adjectives and not on the sentences."
FutureIncoming said:No one has ever refuted the scientific evidence that holds the product of conception to be fully human and fully living. Are you able to refute this?NO, I DO NOT SAY "politically, there is a right to life". I SAY, "politically, there is a CLAIMED right to life, in spite of the scientific evidence." Such a political statement is equivalent to a Party Line that Global Warming is a non-issue, or that the Sun goes around the Earth. And therefore the convolutions you mention are entirely of your own creation, for attributing to me things I did not say.Fantasea quoted: "Regarding priviledges, you are correct that the Declaration of Independence CLAIMS that there is a Right to Life. HOWEVER, that document is a POLITICAL statement, not a scientific statement. Where is your Right to Life if lightning hits you? It is precisely because there is in actual fact NO Right to Life anywhere in all of Nature that I chose to use the word "privilege". Technical accuracy IS better than political correctness, and the Right To Life in politics is indeed a convenient fiction."
Fantasea wrote: "So you say, politically, there is a right to life, but scientifically, there is not. I marvel at your ability to invent convoluted statements in an attempt to bolster your convoluted position."
If not, then the rest of your argument falls flat, doesn't it?
FutureIncoming said:I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to take up this challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals.
For example, if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}.
After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.
Good Luck!
Biologically, the product of conception is a living human. Politics are not requited to take notice of biological fact.FutureIncoming said:Fantasea quoted: "Finally, while Fantasea refuses to consider the question of what REALLY defines a person, such that it can be Universally applied, I think it would be entertaining to mention the following logic:
1. Many humans believe an entity exists which they call "God"
2. Some believe God created both humans and the Earth (called "Terra" in Latin)
(I suspect this group includes most of the most-dedicated of the anti-abortion crowd, due to religious beliefs. This group of humans is relevant below. Please note that I do not include Fantasea in it, due to lack of data.)
3. If God created humans, then God cannot be a human.
4. If God created Terra, then God must be extra-terrestrial in origin.
5. If "persons" are limited to humans only, then God is not a person.
Therefore I conclude that everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person, needs to do something about the definition of "person"."
Fantasea wrote: "The only reason you wish to turn this discussion into one of theology is because you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology."
Before I get to the main point, I ask that you be more specific about "you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology". What claim, precisely? (I note something in one of your other posts that may be a clarification, and I will deal with it, but just in case it isn't....)
NOW. You are utterly mistaking the logic of the quoted post at top, because it actually has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with CONSISTENCY.
1. Start with a human who has a particular definition in mind for "person", which happens to encompass humans.
2. Has that human ever expressed an opinion or belief that some sort of non-human person may exist?
3. If the answer to 2. is "yes", then, is the definition of "person" mentioned in 1. adequate to encompass both humans and that non-human?
4. If the answer to 3. is "no", then the defintion of "person" mentioned in 1. MUST be revised, by the human also mentioned in 1.
Those 4 logical steps DO NOT CARE about theology. It applies just as well to followers of Erich von Daniken's "ancient astronaut" hypothesis just as much as it applies to ancestor-worshippers and alien-abduction claimants and Area-51 conspiracy-theorists, not to mention believers in leprechauns and other Faery folk.
SO: In the text quoted at top, a particular group of humans were identified as claiming that a non-human intelligence exists. THAT GROUP ONLY (a subgroup of the Creationists, to be more specific: "everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person") was indicated as being in need of studying and probably enhancing their definition of "person". And YOU were not required to be included in it; didn't you notice?
FutureIncoming said:YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. ?
FutureIncoming said:If "potential life" is included as part of "totality of being", then why isn't "potential death" also included? I've mentioned lightning striking in a few places in this Message Thread, but there are plenty of other things that Nature can do to cut life unexpectedly short, making a hash out of EXPECTATIONS for "totality of being".
Consider, first, the factual biological determination that, at any stage of development, the product of conception is living and human. There has never been shown any medical or scientific proof to the contrary, has there?The definition of "person" is at the very heart of the abortion debate. If all the unborn can be proved to qualify as people, then killing them is murder and abortions must cease -- while if all the unborn can be proved to be not-people, then killing them is not murder and abortions can continue. OR, if at some point during pregnancy, it can be proved that "this is when personhood begins for humans", then prior to that point abortions can be allowed, but forbidden after that point. THE WHOLE DEBATE CAN END, with such proof available (nobody still argues that the Sun goes around the Earth, do they?). However, for any of the above possilbilties to be proved, an absolutely rigorous and accurate and universally applicable definition of "person" is essential. Arbitrary claims are worthless.
It appeared to me that an END TO THE DEBATE seemed like a goal that the discussion should work toward. However...the posts above seem more concerned with an attempted impugning of credibility and a miring in details rather than an objective and productive exchange of ideas. If the point is WINNING--then the point is not understanding and concluding the objective truth of the matter. If the goal is winning--that directly contradicts objectivity.The definition of "person" is at the very heart of the abortion debate. If all the unborn can be proved to qualify as people, then killing them is murder and abortions must cease -- while if all the unborn can be proved to be not-people, then killing them is not murder and abortions can continue. OR, if at some point during pregnancy, it can be proved that "this is when personhood begins for humans", then prior to that point abortions can be allowed, but forbidden after that point. THE WHOLE DEBATE CAN END, with such proof available (nobody still argues that the Sun goes around the Earth, do they?). However, for any of the above possilbilties to be proved, an absolutely rigorous and accurate and universally applicable definition of "person" is essential. Arbitrary claims are worthless.
fyrefighter said:1. No, your wrong I knew that was my child the moment I found out my wife was pregnant.
2. I mean your mother had to be pro life or you wouldnt be reading this.
Have you ever had a child?
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?