Frozen human embryos are not life forms, S.Korean court says

May 28, 2010

South Korea's Constitutional Court has ruled that human embryos left over from fertility treatment are not life forms and can be used for research or destroyed, a court spokesman said Friday.

In its ruling Thursday the court upheld an existing law allowing the use of leftover embryos for research. The law also allows fertility clinics to dispose of frozen embryos five years after fertilisation treatment is completed.

"The ruling means that that are in their early stage and are not implanted into a mother's womb cannot be seen as human life forms," the spokesman, Noh Hui-Beom, told AFP.

The ruling came after a group of 13 people including pro-life activists filed a petition with the court against the current law, which allows the use of leftover embryos for research.

Following the ruling, shares related to stem-cell research surged on the local market.

Explore further: ALS Ice Bucket Challenge arrives in North Korea

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cal medicinal marijuana law upheld

Dec 07, 2006

Although marijuana is illegal under federal law, it's still allowed for medicinal purposes in California after a judge refused to overturn the state law.

Yahoo! loses French Nazi goods case

Jan 13, 2006

Yahoo! lost trying to get a U.S. court to intervene over a French ruling regarding the sale of Nazi memorabilia on its Web site.

Ruling allows poultry pollution evidence

Mar 24, 2006

A judge in Oklahoma has ruled that state officials may collect evidence for a lawsuit in which they allege poultry farms are polluting state watersheds.

House bill funds embryonic stem cell study

Jan 10, 2007

As the U.S. House seeks to expand embryonic stem cell research funding, the White House is promoting stem cell development methods that don't harm embryos.

Recommended for you

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge arrives in North Korea

22 hours ago

It's pretty hard to find a novel way to do the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge by now, but two-time Grammy-winning rapper Pras Michel, a founding member of the Fugees, has done it—getting his dousing in the center ...

Cold cash just keeps washing in from ALS challenge

Aug 28, 2014

In the couple of hours it took an official from the ALS Association to return a reporter's call for comment, the group's ubiquitous "ice bucket challenge" had brought in a few million more dollars.

Medtronic spends $350M on another European deal

Aug 27, 2014

U.S. medical device maker Medtronic is building stronger ties to Europe, a couple months after announcing a $42.9 billion acquisition that involves moving its main executive offices across the Atlantic, where it can get a ...

User comments : 177

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
2.3 / 5 (9) May 28, 2010
It's only a matter of time until researchers will be able to raise these embryos nine months and more. Wonder whether the judges will call them "not life forms", too.
ZeroX
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2010
Asian gregarious culture never exhibited some pronounced respect to bioethics & life of individuals. If there is something, which could produce money, they will research & use it.
Question
2 / 5 (4) May 28, 2010
This is good decision for the future of their country. Look what China has accomplished with their "one child" policy.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
So since they're already dead, being frozen and unrevivable at our current technology levels, would everyone with an ethical objection prefer we jsut huff em in the dumpster or use them to further our biomedical knowledge to further our ability to save lives and cure illnesses?

I'll go with the latter.
frajo
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2010
would everyone with an ethical objection prefer we jsut huff em in the dumpster or use them to further our biomedical knowledge to further our ability to save lives and cure illnesses?
The most interesting implication of any high value like "our ability to save lives" is the question whether it is valuable enough to use them as food.
You see, it's really an old question and history knows quite diverse answers.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
The most interesting implication of any high value like "our ability to save lives" is the question whether it is valuable enough to use them as food.
You see, it's really an old question and history knows quite diverse answers.
Funny that, someone tried to tell me that the Chinese eat aborted children last night. It was met with a stern rebuke. Glen Beck knows very little, and to parrot anything he says is typically the utter edge of ridiculousness.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 28, 2010
I just wanted to probe into your ethics. Somehow, it seems, you didn't like that.
As European, I don't know anything about (a) person(s) called Glen Beck. Should I?

I really think it is of utmost importance for society to put well defined limits around all "high values". Otherwise, we end again and again with killing innocents (for some "higher value").

It's a very misleading argument to declare that everything is legit if it just enhances "our ability to save lives". Didn't expect that this hint was needed.
Question
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
Frajo: What do you propose be done with these embryos? Store them forever or use them for scientific research? Or discard them if nobody wants them anymore?

It is not as if these embryos have any feelings, they are frozen.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 28, 2010
You are just evading my questioning the limits of your ethics, too. Countering a question by asking another, less important question is bad rhetorics.
MadPutz
not rated yet May 28, 2010
Technically the most ethical thing would be to keep all these embryos frozen until some future point in time when they can be easily grown in vats (or implanted into adoption volunteer's wombs) into full human beings that can live their life.

Unfortunately there is also pressing research that needs the same embryos so some will have to be used. But perhaps they shouldn't be thrown out if they are not used.
Question
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2010
Frajo: I haven't seen any answers coming from you either. My suggestion is to let the people who created the embryos decide what to do with them as long as us taxpayers do not have to foot the bill. We certainly do not need anymore octamoms.

I really do not have any feelings for these embryos. My empathy goes to the living breathing beings on this earth, man and animals. Seeing road kill bothers me much more than the thought of discarding these embryos.
joefarah
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2010
I'm just amazed that they use scientists as judges, poor though they may be. This was a scientific ruling wasn't it? Does that mean that these embryos cannot be used for IVF, since they are not life forms?

The bottom line is that this is a no win situation. Save the trouble and don't allow them period. Surely, adoption (instead of killing) of one of the millions of aborted children each year makes more sense and is easier.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 28, 2010
I just wanted to probe into your ethics.
Well I don't take issue with it. It's outside of my character to consume human flesh however if left with no other option, survival would drive my ethics.
Somehow, it seems, you didn't like that.
Au contrare. I quite enjoyed the probe, I was waiting ot see what our other followers would say before I injected myself into the fray.
As European, I don't know anything about (a) person(s) called Glen Beck. Should I?
You're not missing a thing, trust me.

I really think it is of utmost importance for society to put well defined limits around all "high values". Otherwise, we end again and again with killing innocents (for some "higher value").
Completely agreed.

It's a very misleading argument to declare that everything is legit if it just enhances "our ability to save lives". Didn't expect that this hint was needed.

Well I was speaking more to the content of the article. Subtlety is a weak point of mine as I te
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2010
@frajo,
It's only a matter of time until researchers will be able to raise these embryos nine months and more. Wonder whether the judges will call them "not life forms", too.
By the same token: it's only a matter of time until researchers will be able to construct an embryo by starting from raw atoms. Must we now treat raw atoms as living beings? An embryo is not a viable animal, to speak nothing of a human being, until it is implanted into a womb and grown. An embryo is no more a human being, than an acorn is a living oak tree. Both require gestation and development.

Personally, I define "human being" by presence of a functional brain of a sophistication that exceeds at least that of a garden-variety rat. This pretty much rules out all embryos through first trimester, and I'd say through most of the second trimester as well.
JoeDuff
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2010
It's transparent hypocrisy, indeed. The point is, these embryos are used for research just because their cells are still living. Why they don't use boiled embryos, for example?
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2010
Killing one human to save another argument. You are sick and need a heart transplant and I give you the power to remove the heart of one of two 30 year olds. How do you choose which one to kill so you can live? Well one is rich and one is poor, so how about kill the poor person as they have a lower quality of life? What if I told you the rich one has downs syndrome, would you then kill him as he has a lower quality of life? What if I change the ages? One is 40 and one is 20? The 40 year old has less time to live so kill him?
Killing one person for the benifit of another is immoral.
Judges in the past have said blacks, jews, and others arnt fully human and we know they were idiot followers of ignorant beliefs. These judges fall into the same category.
If you dont belive that human embyos are human, then your ignorance is beyond belief.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 31, 2010
If you dont belive that human embyos are human, then your ignorance is beyond belief.
That's the Catholic error. It leads directly into inhumanity as pregnant women are supposed to be denied some of the rights of self-determination that men have.

A human embryo is not able to live on its own. Thus it is part of the mother's body and the mother should have all rights to determine what happens to that part of her body.
Once the being is able to live without the support of a maternal body it is to be defined as human being.

The Korean judges "forgot" to limit the scientific use of embryos beyond this defining point in development.
This means that in S.Korea human "leftover embryos" may be used for research, even if they are more than nine months old.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2010
Frajo. I am not Catholic and furthermore, blaming the knowledge that an embryo is fully human is the cause of inhumanity is akin to saying those that fought against the holocaust caused Jews to suffer.

If a person is on a heart lung machine they cannot live on their own. If you shoot them while they are on a heart lung machine you will still be guilty of murder.

A newborn baby cannot survive more than a few days without help. If you kill them, you are guilty of murder.

Progressives hate truth and clarity. Progressives believe that humans whom they deem less valuable can be used, or killed at their whim. Progressives calling embryos non human is only meant to obscure that fact. It is just like the Nazis used the phrase final solution to obscure the fact they were killing human who happen to be jews, because they deem Jews subhuman.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2010
@freethinking,

Do tell me what else I am. Let your hate flow.

Meanwhile, I maintain:

Functional brain == human being
No functional brain == not human being

Therefore, a fertilized zygote is not a human being.
Therefore, an early-stage embryo is not a human being.
Therefore, a perfectly preserved cadaver is not a human being.
Therefore, "clinical death" is defined as brain death.
Therefore, a "baby" born without a brain (due to congenital defect: look up anencephaly), is not a human being.

Looking forward into the future:

Therefore, a viable brain being kept alive in a jar, or implanted into a cyborg body, is a human being.
Therefore, a completely artificial (e.g. computer) brain that is viable and as sophisticated as that of a human, must be considered as and accorded the rights of a human being.
Therefore, an alien or artificial organism featuring a cognitive organ comparable in sophistication to the human brain, must be considered as and accorded the rights of a human being.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
Looking forward into the future:
...
Thanks, very well written. Just one point needs a bit of refinement IMHO:
Therefore, an alien or artificial organism featuring a cognitive organ comparable in sophistication to the human brain, must be considered as and accorded the rights of a human being.
"A cognitive organ" is too limiting. There could be a "net" of distributed, self-coordinating "cells" throughout the "bulk"/body which fulfils the same (or higher) functions that are fulfilled by anthropoid brains. Distributed computing is not second to centralized computing.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
I am not Catholic
I didn't say so. But one can propose a Catholic point of view without being a Catholic. Which of course is confusing for some atheists. :)
blaming the knowledge
opinion
that an embryo is fully human is the cause of inhumanity
a cause
is akin to saying those that fought against the holocaust caused Jews to suffer.
I don't understand this "logic".
If a person is on a heart lung machine they cannot live on their own.
Yes. But when born they could live without maternal body. Thus they are human.
A newborn baby cannot survive more than a few days without help.
Yes. But it doesn't need to be embedded in a maternal body anymore. Thus it is a living being and not part of the maternal body anymore.
If you kill them, you are guilty of murder.
Yes, because it was a human living being.

Korean leftover embryos, however, may be raised to grow nine months and more and may be killed/used later on because they are said to be "not life forms".
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
Guys, you won't be able to argue with freethinking about developing humans.

But riddle me this FT: Since all sperm and eggs can result in a viable offspring, would masturbation be genocide for men and would women be guilty of neglegent murder once every 28 days or so?

Where do you draw the line?
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
Where do you draw the line?
I'm afraid we'll have to discuss first whether a line has to be drawn at all. "Overpop"-proponents would not agree, I assume.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,

I'll venture a guess: it's all about fertilization. IOW, sperm & egg only have half a genome each; only something with a complete genome can be considered a human being.

For example, a skin cell.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2010
skin cell, like sperm or an egg cell are only a part of a person. If I need to remind you of that fact your knowledge of science is worse than I thought, or you are so brainwashed by progressive thought.

PE you believe partial birth abortion isnt killing a person, see this

http://www.youtub...0jCbcPNc
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,

I'll venture a guess: it's all about fertilization. IOW, sperm & egg only have half a genome each; only something with a complete genome can be considered a human being.

For example, a skin cell.

Well then we'll have to petition for virus rights!
skin cell, like sperm or an egg cell are only a part of a person. If I need to remind you of that fact your knowledge of science is worse than I thought, or you are so brainwashed by progressive thought.
Last I checked he was correct FT. Perhaps you should catch some of the reality media that not comming out of the Heritage Foundation.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2010
SH, there are already kooks out their that believe that humans are a disease on the earth, and killing babies is ok.

So SH, do you believe that the babies killed by partial birth abortion are fully human or are they nothing more than skin cells?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
FT, I think that by being male, the call and moral gameplay involved, is not my call unless it is my child. As such, I'm unqualified to speak on the ethics of the matter as what goes for me, may not go for you. I think that for those who choose the practice, it should be available as long as it is known that if given to natural induced birth the child would be unable to self sustain at that point. Once science determines the point at which higher thought forms, I'll realign my viewpoint to match what is ethical to my tastes at that time. Objections or follow up questions?
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2010
@freethinking,

It's quite a sudden jump, from frozen embryos to late-term abortion, don't you think? Or is it just the case that you literally don't know the difference between what an embryo is, vs. a late term fetus?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
Being male has nothing to do with it, a baby is half of a chromosomes. Watch that video and think about standing there and watching doctor killing your half born child. Remember the baby is moving the whole time.

Further more your line of reasoning that you are unqualified to speak on the ethics is a stupid line of reasoning. It would be the same as me saying since I am neither a Natzi nor a Jew, I am therefore not qualified to say that killing a Jew by a Natzi is wrong.

When we dehumanize anyone we run the risk of being dehumanized ourselves.

One more question. What do you consider higher thought?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
PE, when talking about humans an embryo is a human at its earlist stage of developement. A fetus is an unborn human.

Your problem is that you will not state the obvious truth, in either case a human fetus or human embryo is fully human, just like an human child, or human adult is human.

Why do you continously want to dehumize people based on age?

PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 01, 2010
@NisaJ,

As mentioned in the story, 22 weeks is just about the physiological cut-off (by the way, 22 weeks and 6 days is just 1 day shy of 23 weeks.) Any earlier, and there's practically 0% chance of survival. Such extreme preemies, even if they survive against all odds, as a rule end up being very ill and severely disabled. They tend to "enjoy" rather short and miserable lives. So I'm not sure how much of a "triumph" it is, to risk bringing such suffering into the world.

http://en.wikiped...orbidity

Still, I tend to approach the question of "human-ness" from a cognitive perspective -- i.e. is there a sufficiently sophisticated, living brain. From that POV, I think the middle of the 2nd trimester (roughly speaking, about 20 weeks into pregnancy) is a pretty safe, conservative threshold.

http://en.wikiped...gression
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
@freethinking,
in either case a human fetus or human embryo is fully human
I have a problem with your definition of "fully human". You base it on genetics, which is a stupid definition. Humanity is not defined by the genome of any given cell; it is defined by the presence of a human mind. A human mind is a product of a human brain. No brain --> no mind --> no human.
Why do you continously want to dehumize people based on age?
Why do you want to dehumanize people by equating them to chromosomes, and by referring to things without a brain, as "people"?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
PE, SH so did you watch the video of the partal birth abortion?
Well here is a link for an 11 week old abortion watch it as well.

http://www.silent...deo1.htm

If you truly believe that an unborn child is not human, then you have no objection to these videos being shown in public school science or sex ed class. If a unborn human is only a clump of cells, showing those cells being killed shouldn't disturb anyone.

Just yesterday, I let my 8 year old watch a show where a parasitic twin was removed. Since I consider the parasitic twin nothing more than a clump of cells and I let my child watch that, you certainly wouldn't object to 14-18 year olds watching a clump of unborn human cells being removed would you?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
@freethinking,

If you want to gross out and traumatize your kids by showing them gory surgical movies, well that's your prerogative. Personally, I wouldn't do that to an 8 year old, as I think it amounts to child abuse. But that's just me.

Now, whether it's appropriate to show 14-18 year olds videos of abortion surgery at public expense, I suppose would be up to your particular community. Not sure how I'd feel about it, given that abortion procedures involve a rather gratuitously exposed vagina... But if you're fine with that, then maybe you'd also support removing the restrictions on public broadcasting against nudity, sex, and vulgar language?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2010
PE, you must believe people are stupid when you say that I dehumanize people when I clearly state everyone regardless of age, race, IQ, gender, health, is fully human.

Your statement is just like a KKK or Natzi saying they are not racist, but I'm a racist because I believe blacks and jews are equal.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
PE my kid must be more mature than you as he wasn't tramatized by what he saw, just a little bit of blood and a few cells being removed.

However I bet you havent watched any of the abortion videos. (BTW I wouldn't let my 8 year old watch them yet either. One thing about watching surgery to save a life and other to watch how they kill a human)

PE watch the videos, since its only a clump of cells, nothing in the videos should disturb you or any other pro-abortionist.
PinkElephant
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
I clearly state EVERYONE regardless of age, race, IQ, gender, health, is fully human.
(emphasis added)

Words like "everyone" imply the addressing of an individual. Calling something an individual implies the presence of a brain. Applying the concept of an individual to something without a brain, is a misuse of terminology. No matter how frequently or insistently you abuse language, your thinking won't get any straighter as a result.
nothing in the videos should disturb you
It does not. See, I don't think dolls are human beings just because they have a human shape. Same goes for fetuses.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
PE my kid in Junior High just saw Schindler's list. Are you saying they shouldn't show that movie since its graphic?

PE please explain to me why progressives all of a sudden care about exposing children to graphic material when it comes to abortion? I just don't get it. Progressives have no problem with graphic movies being shown, graphic sex ed, you are all for broadcasting nudity and vulgar language. Could it be that progressives know that if society would see abortions, instead of just 50+% being against it, 95% would be against it?

On TV I've seen heart, lung, brain, etc being operated on. But never late term or any term abortion. Why not? Is it because progressives and abortionists are scared. If its only a clump of cells being removed then show it, no one would be offended. If its only a clump of cells, showing the operation would only help the pro-abortionist movement.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
I consider EVERYONE as an individual. Even a person brain dead is a human and an individual. An athiest once said something that stuck. If you see a person who was brain dead, would you bury him while he was still breathing and his heart was still beating? If not, you actually consider that person as alive.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
PE my kid in Junior High just saw Schindler's list. Are you saying they shouldn't show that movie since its graphic?
Oh, believe me I'm not one to defend the ridiculous and self-contradictory Puritanical standards imposed on U.S. broadcasters. Then again, I'm not one to derive "morality" from religion.
why progressives all of a sudden care about exposing children to graphic material
I don't speak for all progressives. There's no such organized movement, nor any unified manifesto. I speak for myself, though I do identify myself as _a_ progressive. As far as children, I do believe in the concept of "age-appropriateness". Depending on age, children are not ready to see/know certain things until they're older. I support the notion of MPAA ratings, for instance.
On TV ... never late term or any term abortion. Why not?
Public (taxpayer-subsidized) TV can't, because it's politically controversial. Private companies don't want the trouble from right-wing nut jobs.
PinkElephant
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
Even a person brain dead is a human and an individual.
Brain death is widely accepted as the legal threshold of death. Once brain-dead, a person is declared legally dead. Without brain, there's no individual; there are only body parts and organs.
If you see a person who was brain dead, would you bury him while he was still breathing and his heart was still beating?
That would be a waste of harvestable organs, that might save the lives of others. But why focus on breathing and heart beating? Is it because these "signs of life" are so much more easily detectable, than things like growing hair and fingernails? Did you know that skin, hair, and fingernails continue to grow long after a body is embalmed and entombed? Scandalous!
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2010
PE your knowledge of science is poor. Its a urban myth that hair and fingernails continue to grow. Your knowledge of death is as poor as your knowledge of life.

So did you see the videos? Watch that first one and imagine yourself holding that squirming clump of cells. Hey if my kids can imagine themselves performing operations, you should have no problems imagining yourself holding that clump of cells.

Its interesting, where conservatives see people as humans, progressives see humans as resources to be exploited.

Also to correct your point, Public TV does show controversial topics as long as it is slanted towards progessive thought. Private TV is scared to show an actual abortion as Planed Parenthood, feminists, and all the other progressive groups would though a fit. Right wing would not object at all.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2010
Ok, you got me on the urban myth regarding hair and nails, and for that I thank you. But my point remains the same: beating heart or moving diaphragm do not a person make. They're just organs going through the motions. All you need to support them, is an active brainstem (or intensive care machinery): no brain required. So substitute growing hair/nails with rigor mortis: muscles in action. Woo...
So did you see the videos?
Yes, I did.
Watch that first one and imagine yourself holding that squirming clump of cells.
Are you a vegan? Ever been fishing? What's it like to hold a squirming clump of cells, dangling from your fishing hook?
where conservatives see people as humans
There you go again, using the word "people". Really, people are humans? You sure? And water is wet? Salt is salty?
Right wing would not object at all.
LMAO
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2010
A fetus is an unborn human.
And that's why you think you have the right to force a woman/child who has been raped to deliver.
You claim to save human beings. But in reality you destroy human beings by humiliating them. Remember Dr. Tiller?
And - as freethinking's comments show - the rightwings do have a special affinity to psychological atrocities. I'd really like to know freethinking's stance on torturing human beings.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2010
Such extreme preemies, even if they survive against all odds, as a rule end up being very ill and severely disabled. They tend to "enjoy" rather short and miserable lives. So I'm not sure how much of a "triumph" it is, to risk bringing such suffering into the world.
I don't agree. While I refrain from giving advice to all who are concerned by the prospect of a miserable life I want to call to mind two things.
1) Many people who don't have any psychosomatic disease nevertheless lead a miserable life and curse their parents for throwing them into existence.
2) There's this 21 year old girl in my neighbourhood, the most loveable person I ever met, enchanting everybody with her joy. She has been born with cerebral palsy. She can't walk, stand, or eat by herself. But her life is not at all miserable.
That's why "to risk bringing such suffering into the world" doesn't impress me at all. I'm glad to have met her.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2010
There's this 21 year old girl in my neighbourhood
Well, at least she reached that age. 22-week preemies tend to die within the first excruciating year after "birth" (I would almost rather say, "miscarriage"), at much greater than 50% probability...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2010
Being male has nothing to do with it, a baby is half of a chromosomes. Watch that video and think about standing there and watching doctor killing your half born child. Remember the baby is moving the whole time.

Further more your line of reasoning that you are unqualified to speak on the ethics is a stupid line of reasoning. It would be the same as me saying since I am neither a Natzi nor a Jew, I am therefore not qualified to say that killing a Jew by a Natzi is wrong.

Actually as a human being I'm fully capable of speaking on how human beings should be treated. I'm not a woman, so I can't speak to how a pregnant woman would care to deal with her child. If it is my child, as I said above, then my ethics come into play.

You don't seem to get it, what I do doesn't affect you. So for you to hop the fence, enter my ethical backyard and start making any sort of mandate is immoral by your own standards. I'd suggest you take your soapbox and go home. No one cares.
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2010
SH, Killing someone who isnt related to me does affect me and should affect you.

I find it amazing that if a man rapes a woman you pro-abortionist will gladly sentence the inocent baby to death, yet will not sentence the rapist to death.

PE in regards to holding a fish, well I will call it a fish and I will say I have killed a fish. I know the difference between holding a fish and a baby. You and other abortionists cant even speak the truth and say that when they are holding a baby, they are holding a baby.

PE/SH your arguments are just like Natzi and KKK arguments. They say Jews and Black people arn't human and can be killed and enslaved, to them they are nothing more than a clump of cells.

If I see a Natsi or KKK person speaking lies, I'm morally obligated to speak the truth. Even if it means hoping the fence and getting on my soapbox.

BTW more than 50% of Americans agreee with me over any abortion and over 80% agree with me over late term abortion. So people do care
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2010
PE/SH your arguments are just like Natzi and KKK arguments. They say Jews and Black people arn't human and can be killed and enslaved, to them they are nothing more than a clump of cells.

Be careful what you insinuate. First off, it's NAZI, not "Natsi". Second, the unborn are not born by definition, which means according to the consolidated laws of all western countries they have not a life, nor rights. If you want to argue the law with me, go ahead, you'll be spanked and sent home. If you want to argue biology with me, again, the result will be the same.

If you want to argue metaphysical ethics with me, ensure that your house is in order. As your God has shown zero interest in abortion, and as you state he is all knowing, all seeing, and irrespective of time, that would mean all abortions past, present, and future are part of his plan. So on any front you wish to discuss this issue, get your helmet, because it's going to be a long and painful argument for you.
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2010
SH, just because a judge says a person is not alive doesnt mean the person isnt alive or a human for that matter.

PE and you have problems with defining life. If on Mars they found a creature that is growing, with a heart beating they would call it a life. If it was anything other than a pre-born human no-one would debate the point that it is a life. It's your ethics, your morals, and your science on this point that is inconsistent. You can squirm all you want, but you cant get away from the fact that an unborn baby is just as human as you are.

Its intersting that you an athiest bring up God. I havent, I dont need to as even moral athiests admit killing inocent people is wrong, and moral athiests have no problem in realizing and stating a human is a human no matter what their age is. It is pro-abortionist athiests that can't speak the truth and have problems with ethics.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2010
more than 50% of Americans agreee with me over any abortion and over 80% agree with me over late term abortion. So people do care
They don't care so much for innocent people being killed.
even moral athiests admit killing inocent people is wrong
Yes. But right-wingers don't.

Their ethics are inconsistent.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2010
Frajo the Truth is that Progressives (as well as Natzi, KKK, and other racists) ethics are inconsistent and refuse to admit killing inocent people is wrong. Just look at PE and SH comments.

Please tell me the difference between how a Racist view other races as being subhuman and an abortionist view that an unborn child is subhuman? I equate the two evil and horrific views as the same. If calling another race subhuman is evil, then calling someone who is at a different stage of developement as subhuman is also evil.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2010
@freethinking,

First things first:

Nazi, not Natzi.
Atheist, not athiest.

Glad we got that squared away. Let's see if you're at least capable of learning basic spelling. If you can't even do that much, there's no point trying to have some sort of argument with you...
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2010
PE I'll take spelling lessons, if you take science and morality lessons :)

http://www.livesc...at=myths
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2010
Along with the spelling lessons, may I suggest reading comprehension? Here, I'll quote myself:
Ok, you got me on the urban myth regarding hair and nails, and for that I thank you.
So, shall we continue to flog that dead horse, or will you now proclaim the dead horse a human being also, for good measure?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2010
how about.... a dead horse is a dead horse (unless you want to call it something else), and a dead person is a dead human being. (I like to be consistant even if my spelling isn't) :) flogging either is a waste of time...
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2010
Good, now that's settled:
PE in regards to holding a fish, well I will call it a fish and I will say I have killed a fish. I know the difference between holding a fish and a baby.
Do you? That fish is a far more complete and sentient organism, than an early-stage human fetus. That fish has more of a mind and more of a consciousness, than the fetus does. You have no problem killing the fish, but you have a problem "killing" something even more primitive?

To make the contrast even more stark, let's compare that fetus with a mature pig. That pig has way more of a brain, and hence way more of a mind, than a human fetus of 20 weeks gestation. You've no issues with pig-killing, I take it?

And one last point: do you know the difference between a fetus and a baby?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 03, 2010
And one last point: do you know the difference between a fetus and a baby?

We can answer this question, and our answer is what determines our ethics on the matter. Above and beyond that, aside from saying "It's not my call," do you even know where I stand on the topic?
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
I'm sorry PE, I forgot your a progressive athiest. A horse, even a dead horse, is a horse. A pig, even a baby pig is a pig. A fish, even a squirming fish is a fish. A human baby is a undeveloped human. A human fetoes is an undeveloped human. A human child is an undeveloped human.

Yes I have a problem killing humans. I have a problem killing a Jews, Blacks, someone with downs syndrome, a person in vegetative state, diabetic coma, a baby born, a baby with only its head not born.

I understand that barberic progressives such as yourself (and nazis, KKK, Communists) believe they are Godlike and can determine what is considered human and they alone can determine what to do with subhuman clump of cells.

I'm simple. Anyone is human who has human DNA and is living. Any human living has the same worth as any other human. I know that to progressives such thinking that all humans are equal is shocking. But at least you don't need to fear me putting you in concentration camps.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 03, 2010
Anyone is human who has human DNA and is living.

So Chimpanzees are humans by this mandate.

Perhaps you shouldn't think that we're randomly assigning attributes when you do so yourself.
I know that to progressives such thinking that all humans are equal is shocking. But at least you don't need to fear me putting you in concentration camps.

No I fear Christian torture chambers and Islamic "retraining" camps. The attribute you assign to "progressives" are attributes that your structural understanding attributes to evil. Well sometimes the man and not the institution can be the root of evil. Besides, you say we don't believe in anything since we've rejected religion and God. If that's the case, then we wouldn't be working together much now would we?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2010
SH Chimpanzees have Chimpanzees DNA - Come on dont denegrate yourself so bad. You are grasping at straws.

You should fear Islamic retraining camps with progressives running the country.

Christian torture chambers, SH, you have been brainwashed and your bigotry and hatred is showing. What next, jews running the world? Open your eye, who in this world are running torture chambers? It's progressive governments like China, Russia, etc.

Dont let your hatred of Christians blind you to the truth who to fear.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
SH Chimpanzees have Chimpanzees DNA - Come on dont denegrate yourself so bad. You are grasping at straws.
So what is the difference between the two that delineates human and chimp? What is the amount of difference needed to classify somethign as a new species?
Christian torture chambers, SH, you have been brainwashed and your bigotry and hatred is showing.
The inquisition is a known event. The summary burning of scientists at the stake is a known event. The summary burning of books and libraries that don't agree with Christian theology is a known event.

What brainwashing are you referring to?
Open your eye, who in this world are running torture chambers? It's progressive governments like China, Russia, etc.
China and Russia aren't allowing people to suffer and die of AIDS due to dogma in subsaharan Africa. Communism and socialism didn't tell these people that having sex, even though you have AIDS is safer without a condom.

Hatred of Christians, ha.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
SH your knowledge of history is very poor. When someone self identifies themselves as a skeptic it generally means they have made up their minds about certain facts. As stated I am not Catholic and disagree with Catholic doctrine, that said I am not a hater of Catholics and have researched enough to know that the inquisition was more about Centeralized Government (progressive for their time) using ignorant people (like todays liberals) to further their political causes.

I was once told by a magician the easiest people to convert into a radical believer is a skeptic. They think they are smarter than anyone else, and once they are convinced of something, no matter the evidence, they will never let go of that belief. I didn't believe this, till I did it. I did some psychic tricks on someone who didn't believe is psychics, it took a lot of effort and explanation after the fact to show him I didnt have psychic abilities but used tricks.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
You said China and Russian isn't allowing people to suffer and die of Aids. It wasn't long ago China didn't even admit it had aids.
Below is a 2008 article about how china deal with aids..
http://www.guardi...ina.aids
China/Russia not a good example for you.

Catholics saying that not having pre-marital sex will most likely prevent you from getting AIDS is TRUE. If you follow Catholic advice, AIDS would be wiped out in 20 years.

Follow Planned Parenthood advice of having sex with whomever you want as long as you use a Condom, will never get rid of AIDS.

Having communists taking care of health care, will spread AIDS to those who enter the hospitals.

I am not a skeptic, but a free thinker. I question everything including my faith. What I strive for is consistency.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2010
@freethinking,
Yes I have a problem killing humans.
So do I, I assure you.
they are Godlike and can determine what is considered human
It is not Godlike to be able to figure out -- with a generous margin of safety -- whether a given entity has a brain of sufficient sophistication to exceed at least that of an adult pig. A safe threshold would be 20 weeks of gestation. Anything prior to that, doesn't amount to a human being.
I'm simple.
The problem is, you're TOO simple. In this case, over-simplification leads directly to human suffering (unwanted babies, severely deformed/non-viable infants, illegal/back-alley/botched abortions, endangering health of women, endangering health of other fetuses in the case of too many gestating twins) and subjugation of human rights (forcing women to carry to term against their will.)
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2010
Catholics saying that not having pre-marital sex will most likely prevent you from getting AIDS is TRUE.
Only partially. You can still get AIDS through post-marital sex. In fact, 10 years ago I went to an AIDS-related presentation where the speaker was a woman who got HIV from her husband, who got infected while cheating on her.

There are only two viable approaches here. Either abstain from ALL sex, FOREVER. Or, whenever having sex, use condoms.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
An Ape is an Ape. A dog is a dog, a cow is a cow. A person is a person, in my books. All is consistent. For you a person is only a person if XYZ, but only in ABC situations, and only if it is convenient and it is a benfit to me.

I believe it is not right to lie to further my causes or beliefs. Unfortuantely Abortionists, Progressives, and even Radical Athiests don't agree.

SH your beliefs about human life are inconsistent, unscientific, inhuman, and your argument illogical.

Do tell me where your beliefs about human life is any different from the Nazis or the KKK?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
When someone self identifies themselves as a skeptic it generally means they have made up their minds about certain facts.
No, when someone identifies as a skeptic typically they require facts in order to change their poijnt of view. Christians are typically not skeptical of things their preacher tells them. I am. I require evidence, you do not.
I did some psychic tricks on someone who didn't believe is psychics, it took a lot of effort and explanation after the fact to show him I didnt have psychic abilities but used tricks.
Awesome test Mr. Scientist.
An Ape is an Ape. A dog is a dog, a cow is a cow. A person is a person, in my books. All is consistent. For you a person is only a person if XYZ, but only in ABC situations, and only if it is convenient and it is a benfit to me.
How does abortion benefit me?

FYI: Atheists in the US have fewer abortions than devout Christians. Perhaps it isn't people like me that you need to worry about.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
SH, you may be the exception about requiring fact for your opinions, but based on the facts you present I doubt that.

As for devout Christians, one needs to start questioning things, but since you are skeptical your beliefs are fixed, but I'll enlighten you.
82% of US said they were Christin in 2002. Sounds great.
19% of American Christians are Active Christians.
21% of American Christians are Cultural Christians.
Of the 19% only 90% believe Jesus was the son of God (core belief)
I can go on deeper, but the actual figures for % devout Christian is closer to 10% of US population.
The study you talk about with abortion didn't go into this, but since you have a set belief you wouldnt have know to ask questions.

But it is known that religious people have more kids than athiests, so from an evolutionary perspective (which I dont believe), athiests are a dead end in more ways than one :)

freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
For PE and SH a little biology lessen that you missed in grade school. When a man and a woman have sex, at the right time, without protection, the woman can get pregnant with a baby human (not a baby ape, or baby pig, or baby fish).

For those of you who don't know what the definition of baby is Baby n. pl. ba bies
a) A very young child; and infant.
b) An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.

I have never heard a doctor say congradulations you are pregnant with a baby pig, ape, dog, cow.

I've also never heard the doctor say, that clump of cells growing looks healthy. Or has that clump of cells been moving?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 03, 2010
@freethinking,

So are you saying that you use the term "baby" to INTENTIONALLY confuse "a very young child; an infant" with "an unborn child; a fetus"? Most people understand "baby" to mean "infant", as opposed to zygote, blastocyst, or embryo.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 04, 2010
For PE and SH a little biology lessen that you missed in grade school. When a man and a woman have sex, at the right time, without protection, the woman can get pregnant with a baby human (not a baby ape, or baby pig, or baby fish).

Quick lesson for you. Humans are apes, so when a female human becomes pregnant, she is indeed pregnant with an Ape.

I've also never heard the doctor say,

I've never heard a Doctor deny evolution either, but you're entirely content to do so regardless of the knowledge that Evolution is a FACT.
The study you talk about with abortion didn't go into this, but since you have a set belief you wouldnt have know to ask questions.
Says the man who believes in a Sun God.
But it is known that religious people have more kids than athiests, so from an evolutionary perspective (which I dont believe), athiests are a dead end in more ways than one :)
Is your last name Hovind?
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
SH technically you are correct in saying humans are apes, as an ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates which include humans. However do to its ambiguous nature, the term ape has been deemphasized as a means of describing a taxonomic relationships, so calling humans Apes is nothing more than an outdated word game played by witless people of deficient intelligence.

You fall into the catagory of people who play word games like calling unwanted unborn babies fetus so you have no problem in them being killed. S

Since you still seem confused let me clarifiy. Not all apes are human, so only human apes can have human children. A gorilla has gorilla babies, human have human babies. A unborn human baby, if not killed, will be born human, and become an adult human person.

PE/SH, you still havent answered the question. What is the difference between how you view human life and how the KKK and Nazis view humans
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
SH, I am not Kent Hovind, nor do I believe in a Sun God. Your ignornace and hatred of Christians is showing badly.

But don't worry though, if America doesn't wake up soon, Athiests and Muslims will either start concentration camps here for Jews and Christians, just like they did in Athiest China and Russia, or like most of the middle east just kill them in churches and on the street.

Whereas with devout Christian and Jews, believe all people are fully human, when it comes to Athiest, Extremist Muslims, Nazi's, and so forth, Jews and Christians along with unborn babies are subhuman.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
Sorry about the above.... missed the edit time to fix edit mistatkes

SH, I am not Kent Hovind, His belief falls more in line with progressives (ends justify the means, the truth does not matter, why pay taxes, hate the Jews) nor do I believe in a Sun God. Your ignornace and hatred of Christians is showing badly.

But don't worry though, if America doesn't wake up soon, Athiests and Muslims will start either concentration camps here for Jews and Christians, just like they did in Athiest China, Russia and Cuba, or like in most of the Middle East just kill them in churches or on the street.

Whereas devout Christian and Jews believe all people are fully human, when it comes to Athiest, Extremist Muslims, Nazi's, and so forth, Jews, Christians along with unborn babies are a subhuman threats.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
FT: You've shown over this correspondence that you have knowledge of current taxonomy, realize and understand that Humans are Apes, and still believe there is a difference between us and other Apes. So what is this difference between us and other Apes? Be specific, use references, and of course, speak the scientific truth.

You say I play word games to evidence my point, incorrect. I use facts to exemplify my point. You hold a subjective view of human beings, I hold an objective view. I don't value or devalue human beings in respect to other human beings when I speak objectively. I also don't confuse a self sustaining chemical reaction with a non-self sustaining chemical reaction, as that is what all life truly is. The difference between life and unlife is the ability to self replicate and self sustain. A Fetus cannot self sustain, a baby can. I am against abortion where the child is in a state that without medical assistance, they can survive. Prior to that state, they are not human
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
Whereas devout Christian and Jews believe all people are fully human, when it comes to Athiest, Extremist Muslims, Nazi's, and so forth, Jews, Christians along with unborn babies are a subhuman threats.

This is entirely wrong. How presumptuous of you to speak for the majority of the world when you've neither met with, nor learned the stance of even a representative minority of us.

I think you need to look in the mirror next time you tell someone to be more open minded.

I have no hatred towards Christians, and I am well schooled in your thought processes and ideologies as well as understanding your theist stances better than most of you do. I've read your book(s) including the ones you refuse to allow into the "Christ Club" called the New Testament.

If you want to argue Christianity, you won't find a more well prepared foe. I'd only request that we bring it to a more public forum so that your embarassment will be manifest for your ilk to view.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
SH - you are not well schooled in Christian thought process. You even saying so is laughable. I would agree that unfortuantely you probably do know more about Christianity than most people who call themselves Christians, but again I'm not much impressed (though I act it sometimes) when a kid in kindergarten says they are smarter than a kid in pre-school.

If I take away air, food, and water from you, you will be dead human in short order. If you remove the unborn baby before it is born, it too will be dead human in short order.

Give the unborn access to air and nurishment he or she will self sustain just as well or better than you do.

I may not be the best speller in the world, but I do know what words mean.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
You define when life begins based on your opinion not science. Your deninition is subjective as subjective is defined as taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.

Objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena. When sperm and egg unite ... an individual is formed and starts to grow into adulthood.

You twist words, misrepresent history, and either purposly or unintentionally distort so many things just like a progressive. You call good evil and evil good.

If you went into the former Soviet Union or China a few years ago, Cuba today, or Iran, Egypt, Syria, or a host of countries and hold a bible in your hands and shout Jesus is the Way The Truth, The life. In very short order you would either be dead or in a hell hole of a jail.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
Bragging that you are a well prepared foe for me in regards to religious thing is funny. You may be able to confuse infant Christians (I wonder if you understand that phrase and know where it comes from), but I know the bible, theology, history, better than most people and certainly better than you.

Your grasp on religion is worse than my grasp on spelling.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
When sperm and egg unite ... an individual is formed and starts to grow into adulthood.
Wrong.

Look up the notion of "identical twins".
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 04, 2010
You define when life begins based on your opinion not science. Your deninition is subjective as subjective is defined as taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.
Current scientific definition of life is "A self sustaining chemical reaction or reactions that metabolize and self replicate.

This definition excludes Viruses and anything that isn't self sustaining. I can go create some stem cells in the lab now, does that mean that the stem cells are human life? How about if I arrange them in the shape of a fetus? How about if I keep them in a testube/womb until they can breathe and cry? Is that a human being? In my eyes it's human when it not only shares all attributes agreed upon by the definition of "human" but can also self sustain as is required by the scientific definition.

but I know the bible, theology, history, better than most people and certainly better than you.
Then put up or shut up.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2010
PE/SH identical twins are two individuals. Your point is?

A unborn baby (fetus for abortion activist like you guys) is a self sustaining chemical reaction or reactions that metabloizes and self replicates.

But strickly using your terms, anyone who is sterile is no longer capable of replicating, therefore according to your definition not alive.

Other than you shouting, I'm still waiting for you to put up. Your conviluted unscientific logic is something only a progressive can fathom or justify.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 04, 2010
A unborn baby (fetus for abortion activist like you guys) is a self sustaining chemical reaction or reactions that metabloizes and self replicates.
So how long will that fetus grow, replicate, respirate, and "live" when removed from their host body?
Other than you shouting, I'm still waiting for you to put up. Your conviluted unscientific logic is something only a progressive can fathom or justify.

Well here's a simple one for you.

If God is all knowing, all powerful and irrespective of time as you claim, and you have claimed this several times on physorg, then he must be quite alright with abortions seeing as he created the entire system and process by which it would come to manifest. That's a simple logical trap, yet within Christianity, without lying, it's impossible to escape, because religious dogma is an enforced lie.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2010
Current scientific definition of life is "A self sustaining chemical reaction or reactions that metabolize and self replicate.

This definition excludes Viruses and anything that isn't self sustaining. I can go create some stem cells in the lab now, does that mean that the stem cells are human life? How about if I arrange them in the shape of a fetus? How about if I keep them in a testube/womb until they can breathe and cry? Is that a human being? In my eyes it's human when it not only shares all attributes agreed upon by the definition of "human" but can also self sustain as is required by the scientific definition.
Similarly, during ancient times, babies weren't considered fully human and infanticide was commonly practiced!

"There must be a law that no imperfect or maimed child shall be brought up. And to avoid excess in population, some children must be exposed. For a limit must be fixed to the population of the state."
-Aristotle

Thankfully, we now know better?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
@freethinking,
PE/SH identical twins are two individuals. Your point is?
Why do you call me PE/SH? I'm not SH.

Anyway, my point is that you said:
When sperm and egg unite ... an individual is formed and starts to grow into adulthood.
A common mistake made by scientifically illiterate Bible floggers.

Yes, identical twins are two (or more) distinct individuals. And when I asked you to ponder that concept, I implied that you should consider where the two (or more) distinct individuals came from -- while being IDENTICAL (as opposed to paternal) twins. If you can research the origins of identical twins, you might realize the falsehood you uttered.

(Once you figure out what brings about identical twins, your next homework assignment will be to research the vanishing twin syndrome. Good luck.)
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 05, 2010
Thankfully, we now know better?

Absolutely. Aristotle and others who suggested proto-eugenics programs have almost always been in the wrong. This is mainly due to their relative technological inability to perform the examinations to determine what makes each of us different.

An idiot savant may be completely unable to perform in school with other children, but he still has merit whether he discovers his gift or not simply by virtue of being yet another individual. Now, abortion eliminates a potential individual, however, if the abortion is done prior to the point of rational thought, then it's no more than killing any other animal. The penalty should then be upon those who allow the "clump of cells" to be unused in furthering the advancement of the rest of the species.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2010
When sperm and egg unite is when an individual is formed. When Identical twins split thee is two individuals. I am more aware of how it happens.

Both of you to ease your coscientious MUST refuse to admit that a unborn baby is human. 1 + 1 = 2 is true, even if a judge or you say it is three.

It is interesting that neither one of you believe in God, yet say you know when a human is a human. When to confer rights. How valuable a person is. If I am wrong and a baby is not a baby until is is developed to X point, then my belief didn't kill a person. Wrong on the other side I am.

Put it another way. If you were a executioner of a murderer, and you knew there was a 50% (or 40, 30, 20, 10) chance that the person you were executing was inocent, would you pull the switch?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 05, 2010
If I am wrong and a baby is not a baby until is is developed to X point, then my belief didn't kill a person. Wrong on the other side I am.
Then use your stance to address what should be done about an ectopic pregnancy.
Put it another way. If you were a executioner of a murderer, and you knew there was a 50% (or 40, 30, 20, 10) chance that the person you were executing was inocent, would you pull the switch?
Need more information to supply you an answer.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2010
Ectopic pregnancy is very clear and a good question from you (finally). The baby will die no matter what. If you don't kill the baby, both the mother and baby will die. Same thing with a born attached twin. If you dont seperate them, both will die, if you seperate them one will surely die. Is it right to seperate them. If you were the twin to die, but you knew your death will save your twin, and that doing nothing will kill you both, what would you do?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2010
Would they qualify as life forms if they were found on Titan or Mars?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2010
"Scientists have found evidence that there is life on Saturn's biggest moon, Titan.

They have discovered clues that primitive aliens are breathing in Titan's atmosphere and feeding on fuel at the surface.

Read more: http://www.dailym...q0KJpUGp
"
Familiarity breeds contempt?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 05, 2010
Ectopic pregnancy is very clear and a good question from you (finally). The baby will die no matter what. If you don't kill the baby, both the mother and baby will die. Same thing with a born attached twin. If you dont seperate them, both will die, if you seperate them one will surely die. Is it right to seperate them. If you were the twin to die, but you knew your death will save your twin, and that doing nothing will kill you both, what would you do?


So you're saying that murder is ok to prevent accidental death, but not ok to prevent future hardship and potential death/suicide.

What sort of moral gymnastics are you doing to get to this point? If all abortion is murder, as you say it is due to your thoughts on fetuses being alive and human beings, then you're effectively killing a human being to save another human being.

This is directly contrary to your moral compass. Justify it.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2010
When sperm and egg unite is when an individual is formed. When Identical twins split thee is two individuals.
So, what are you calling an "individual"? In absence of a consciousness, there are no HUMAN individuals. You can talk about individual bacteria, or individual blastocysts, or individual embryos. But you can NOT talk about individual HUMANS -- until you can show at least the potential for consciousness.

Blastocysts can cleave, to give rise to identical twins. Hence they can't even be considered "undeveloped individuals"; they're more like proto-undeveloped individuals. Twins can get absorbed into other twins early in gestation; they never get to exist as individuals.

Lastly, consider that many pregnancies never carry to term (i.e. they result in miscarriage.) Miscarriage is usually due to severe defects in the fetus. Such fetuses can be said to never have been destined to become individuals.

Thus your conception of fetuses as individual humans, is patently wrong.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2010
It is interesting that neither one of you believe in God, yet say you know when a human is a human.
An interesting point. Shall society define medical practice and law based on any given superstition and/or religion?

As an individual, you're free to believe whatever you want, and arrange your OWN life accordingly. But what gives you the right to /dictate/ someone ELSE's life based on YOUR religion? What gives you the right to religious tyranny? At least in America, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, the answer is: Nothing. You have no such right.

In a truly free nation, common law and common medical standards cannot be based on any religion, myth, fairy tale, or magical rite. It must be based on an objective, scientific foundation.

A human being is distinguished from all other life forms, by the presence of a human MIND. Take away any other aspect, and you still have a human being. Take away the mind, and there's no human being left.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2010
It is interesting that neither one of you believe in God, yet say you know when a human is a human.
Islam would say that you're not human because you don't believe in Muhammad's divinity in his role as prophet of God.

Are you human? I think so. I don't subscribe to dogma. You do, so what makes your dogma more correct than that of an Imam? And don't forget my prior question:
If all abortion is murder, as you say it is due to your thoughts on fetuses being alive and human beings, then you're effectively killing a human being to save another human being.

This is directly contrary to your moral compass. Justify it.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2010
Following the ruling, shares related to stem-cell research surged on the local market.

At least the motivation behind the decision was reported.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 05, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Islam would say that you're not human because you don't believe in Muhammad's divinity in his role as prophet of God.
I'm not sure that's right. Islam says you're an infidel, and therefore don't have as many rights in an Islamic society. However, you're still human. You only deserve death if you're an infidel AND you're actively undermining Islam.

But really, there's no need to go so far afield. Since so many "pro-lifers" consider themselves part of a JUDEO-Christian heritage, look into the Hebrew tradition, and see what it says regarding human status:

http://www.religi...abor.htm

A model of objective clarity, isn't it?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2010
I'm not sure that's right. Islam says you're an infidel, and therefore don't have as many rights in an Islamic society. However, you're still human. You only deserve death if you're an infidel AND you're actively undermining Islam.
Kaffa are considered subhuman in multiple suras, much as black slaves were considered subhuman in colonial America.
A model of objective clarity, isn't it?

If you want to subscribe to judeo-christian values, turn your computer off and go stone yourself to death for forcing others to work on the Sabbath.

No answer for my other question?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 05, 2010
Kaffa are considered subhuman in multiple suras, much as black slaves were considered subhuman in colonial America.
I'll grant you that, though unlike black slaves, the Kaafir have a way to gain full rights: conversion to Islam. But that's starting to go off on a tangent (and I don't want to give the impression of somehow endorsing Islam...)
If you want to subscribe to judeo-christian values
Huh? You talking to ME, SH?
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2010
SH you didn't answer my question. If you were attached to a twin and needed your twin to survive (this has actually occured), but because of your attachment you are killing your twin. He dies, you die. Is it right for, and would you agree to be seperated to save the life of the twin? Same argument of ectopic pregnacy.

PE people die every day of disease. Doesn't mean its ok to kill.

PE/SH Interesting you are agreeing that different groups define who is human differently. If the group I belong to was powerful and in the majority if I said you're not human, would that make it so? By your definition yes it would. I would rather err on the side that keeps all people safe.

SH your lack of religious insight is pathetic, please stop. You make yourself look like a fool with the comment about the Sabbath.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2010
BTW, religioustollerance.org is a progressive (leftist) group. Dont believe me, read there own statement of beliefs and then go ahead and compare them with any leftist group.

PE its just like me going to a pro KKK website to find out the truth about Jews.

Interesting enough though, I haven't used a religious argument about abortion (don't want to embarase PE/SH about their lack of knowledge in this area) , just stating scientific facts and basing my opinions on what is human based just on scientific facts. If you want me to bring biblical statements against abortion I can....
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2010
If the group I belong to was powerful and in the majority if I said you're not human, would that make it so? By your definition yes it would.
I think you missed my definition by about 180 degrees.

My definition is that such things ought to be determined objectively, and not based on anyone's subjective or religious opinion.

Objectively, a human being is defined by a human mind. Perhaps you might see it better with the help of a thought experiment:

If you take a living adult human, cut the head off at the neck and keep both resulting 'halves' of the body alive, which half is the human and which is just body parts? Destroying which half, would be equivalent to murder?

I'm assuming you'll pick the head, like most modern people. Now take the head, and extract the brain; keep both "quarters" alive. Which one's the human being, again?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
Interesting enough though, I haven't used a religious argument about abortion (don't want to embarase PE/SH about their lack of knowledge in this area) , just stating scientific facts and basing my opinions on what is human based just on scientific facts. If you want me to bring biblical statements against abortion I can....
Oh please do. This will be fun.

SH your lack of religious insight is pathetic, please stop. You make yourself look like a fool with the comment about the Sabbath.
Actually my religious insight comes from being raised by a Catholic and a Jew, my mother and father respectively. Both had since renounced their faiths and encouraged me to determine my own way through objective reasoning and reading the source materials for the major religions. I'm godless because I've found NO substantial basis for any belief written within the pages of any of them. Hinduism isn't bad, but it's a tad too sexually mystical for my tastes and not really a religion.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
Huh? You talking to ME, SH?

A clarification of your point due to the posting time, intended for any onlookers. My apologies for lack of clarity in my intended audience.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
reading the source materials for the major religions.

Wow, you can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic?

There are whose can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic who do have faith in God. Do you ever wonder why or do you think you are smarter than they are?
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
my religious insight comes from being raised by a Catholic and a Jew,

They did a lousy job based upon what you think you know about those religions.
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
Actually my religious insight comes from being raised by a Catholic and a Jew, my mother and father respectively. Both had since renounced their faiths and encouraged me to determine my own way through objective reasoning and reading the source materials for the major religions. I'm godless because I've found NO substantial basis for any belief written within the pages of any of them.
Thanks a lot. This explains very well your hatred of all religious people. They didn't give you a home.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
Thanks a lot. This explains very well your hatred of all religious people. They didn't give you a home.
Oh this is also demonstrably false. Would you like to show evidence of my hatred towards religious people?
Wow, you can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic?

There are whose can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic who do have faith in God. Do you ever wonder why or do you think you are smarter than they are?

There are people who can't read who have faith in God. Based on your evidence, and submission that all there is to need to know about faith comes from the bible, do you ever wonder why they have faith seeing as they can't determine exactly what it is they have faith in?

Just as you and I both read english and can both read the english bible, they have a different interpretation than I do. They speak about these texts based on preexisting faith. If I wrote you a note that said God was Good, you'd believe it as I wrote it, just as these people do.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
There are whose can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic who do have faith in God.
Yes. And I happened to find that they are a minority among those who can read ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
There are whose can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic who do have faith in God.
Yes. And I happened to find that they are a minority among those who can read ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic.

How many do you know?
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
Thanks a lot. This explains very well your hatred of all religious people. They didn't give you a home.
Oh this is also demonstrably false. Would you like to show evidence of my hatred towards religious people?
Here:
As a defender of free speech, and a believer that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, I support and participated in Draw Muhammad Day.
This is offensive to Islam, and I don't care.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
Just as you and I both read english and can both read the english bible, they have a different interpretation than I do.

Is the 6th Commandment don't kill or don't murder? The implications are significant.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
There are whose can read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Arabic who do have faith in God.
Yes. And I happened to find that they are a minority among those who can read ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic.
How many do you know?
I don't know how many. Of course I don't claim to know them all. It's just a personal impression.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
So frajo, how does offending someone based on their intolerance for free speech imply hatred for them due to their religious belief?
Is the 6th Commandment don't kill or don't murder? The implications are significant.
It is do not murder.

What is your definition of Murder, and what is your definition of killing? In my world, murdering someone requires killing them, and the act of killing someone is murder.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
PE nor SH has answered my question. If you were attached to a twin and you are an adult, but there was no way for you to live without your twin, but because you are attached to the twin, is it alright to seperate you? If you both stay attached, you both die, remove one, one dies, the other lives? (This goes to the ectopic pregnacy argument) I try to keep all arguments equivilant. If its ok to do to an unborn baby, it should be ok to do to an adult.

My definition of Murder, and it is biblical if not the legal definition, is the unjustified intentional killing of another person.

Also my experiece is that all the people I know who can read/speak ancient greek, hebrew, and arabic are believers. So obviously your argument on this is stupid.

PE/SH I know both of you can come up with better arguments on many topics, but your lack of knowledge on Religion, and lack of consistancy with this one is painfully obvious. On this topic your arguments are as painful as my spelling.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
PE nor SH has answered my question.
Because you haven't answered mine first, as I stated you must in order to illicit further answers from me for your hypotheticals.
My definition of Murder, and it is biblical if not the legal definition, is the unjustified intentional killing of another person.

So you're saying that there is justification for killing and that the two are seperate entites. Give me an example of justified killing.

Also my experiece is that all the people I know who can read/speak ancient greek, hebrew, and arabic are believers. So obviously your argument on this is stupid.
Neither my argument nor PE's argument included statements on the faith of those who read dead languages.

Before you try to attack our consistency, you'd need to establish our inconsistency first.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
and the act of killing someone is murder.

Killing someone to defend your life or anyone's life is murder?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
Killing someone to defend your life or anyone's life is murder?
Yep, two words, one meaning. Both by my definition and that of the courts which you subject yourself to.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
My definition of Murder, and it is biblical if not the legal definition, is the unjustified intentional killing of another person
We do love the word "unjustified", don't we?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
"Both aggravated murder and simple murder have the element of purposely causing the death of another. "
http://definition.../murder/

"justifiable homicide n. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. "
http://legal-dict...homicide

SH: It looks like it is only your definition, not the law's definition.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
justifiable homicide n. a killing without evil or criminal intent,

This implies that there is a killing that has evil or criminal intent. So that supports my statement that under the eyes of the law, and by common english, killing and murder are one in the same.

From your own source: http://legal-dict...com/kill

kill (Murder), verb assassinate, conficere, deprive of life, destroy, dispatch, execute, exterminate, injure fatally, interficere, liquidate, massacre, occidere, put to death, slaughter, slay, smite

Again, you prove me correct. Killing and Murder are pseudonyms according to your own source.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Again, you prove me correct. Killing and Murder are pseudonyms according to your own source.

Try this in a court of law. You asserted the definitions were the same.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
SH which question did you want me to answer before you will answer mine?

Justifiable, well if attacked it is justifiable to defend, if the mother IS going to die then it is justifiable to kill the baby, if the one conjoined twin is going to kill the other twin, then it is justifiable to kill.

I stay consistent, if a unborn baby is going to kill the mother (unintentionally) then it is justified to kill the baby. If an adult is going to kill, then it is justified to kill that person.

freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
So SH/PE two questions you havent answered are
1. the conjoined twin question.
2. what is the difference between how you define what is human, and how KKK and nazi's define human.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
@freethinking,

Your question #1 continues to presume equivalence between fetus and adult humans. Since I reject that presumption, I see no point in addressing the rest of your question. I've offered you plentiful and redundant, objective justification of why I reject your false equivalences.

Your question #2 doesn't even deserve an answer. It's the equivalent of asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?" You may insist on insulting someone's intelligence, but you oughtn't be surprised to find that some people simply won't be suckered by your bait.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
No one has answered my question. If a human embryo was found on Mars, would it be declared a human life form?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
If a human embryo was found on Mars, would it be declared a human life form?
a) An embryo can't survive on Earth, let alone on Mars. So, a dead human embryo found on Mars, would be declared a rather embarrassing case of negligent cross-planetary bio-contamination.

b) If some viable extraterrestrial life-form comparable in complexity to a human embryo is found anywhere, it will be declared a viable extraterrestrial life-form. It will NOT be declared a "human" or "human-equivalent", unless it can manifest at least the intelligence of a chimpanzee.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
unless it can manifest at least the intelligence of a chimpanzee.

Pray you don't have an injury which leaves you looking like you don't have the intelligence of a chimpanzee. By your standards, you would not be human and should not be treated as such.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
@FT, you answered it as you asked what the question was.

But your consistency is off a bit.
I stay consistent, if a unborn baby is going to kill the mother (unintentionally) then it is justified to kill the baby. If an adult is going to kill, then it is justified to kill that person.
So you'll send an unbaptized innocent to hell while leaving his baptized mother alive? That sounds pretty damning to me. Not only are you going to commit murder (your definition, not mine) but you're going to damn the soul of the murdered in order to save the life of one who is not damned. That is logically inconsistent with your faith.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
That is logically inconsistent with your faith.
How can anyone who has no faith provide a rational critique of someone's faith? Answer: they cannot.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
SH your ignorance about Christianity is amazing. Neither Catholic, nor Protestant, branches of Christianity believe an unbaptized baby will go to Hell. Pope Benedict XVI clarified the Catholic position in 2007. I knew that and I'm not even Catholic.

I suspect since you will not answer my 2 questions above just like PE, and since you scietific arguments are weak, and your ethics arguments are inconsistant, you are grasping at our ignorance of our faith. The problem is I know church doctrine, history, and belief. It is funny that in this entire discussion I have not brought up religion, souls, etc. It is alway you and PE that bring it up.

Perhaps if you and PE really come to know what Christianity is all about your wouldn't be so scared of it, maybe you might even become a Christian. Smarter, more devote Athiests have become Christians you know, so it's not beyone the realm of possiblity.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Perhaps if you and PE really come to know what Christianity is all about your wouldn't be so scared of it, maybe you might even become a Christian.

Such people fear they will loose (their illusion of) control.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Perhaps if you and PE really come to know what Christianity is all about your wouldn't be so scared of it,
It's not a question of being scared. It's the - very personal - perception of its appealing and its appalling characteristics.
maybe you might even become a Christian. Smarter, more devote Athiests have become Christians you know, so it's not beyone the realm of possiblity.
Yes. And the other way round: Smarter, more philanthropic Christians have become atheists or agnostics.

Such people fear they will loose (their illusion of) control.
Generalizing over a set of individuals implies injustice.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Generalizing over a set of individuals implies injustice.


Thanks for provide an example:
Smarter, more philanthropic Christians have become atheists or agnostics.

PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 07, 2010
Pray you don't have an injury which leaves you looking like you don't have the intelligence of a chimpanzee. By your standards, you would not be human and should not be treated as such.
If such an injury was permanent, then from the point of that injury onward
I'd never know who I used to be, who I am currently, nor what's happening to me. Thus in effect and in reality, I wouldn't even care how I'm treated or what happens to me: I'd be literally incapable of caring. I wouldn't even be self-aware. For all practical purposes, as an individual I'd be dead and gone.

But if the injury was transient, then there'd be at least a chance of recovery. This would be evidenced, at a minimum, by a relatively intact brain that has at least the potential to function well again.

When a life-form manifests no structure even potentially capable of cognition, then it has absolutely no chance of ever exhibiting cognition. That's a tautology, by the way.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
"After tests revealed no blood flow to Dunlap’s brain, doctors determined he met the legal and medical requirements for declaring someone brain-dead. "
'Dunlap said he did not remember the accident, but he does remember the doctor declaring him dead. “I heard it and it just made me mad inside,” he said."
http://www.cathol...ccident/
then it has absolutely no chance of ever exhibiting cognition.

How do you determine 'no chance'?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
How do you determine 'no chance'?
Very simple: lack of a sufficiently sophisticated brain.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
The problem is I know church doctrine, history, and belief.

Highly doubt it. Most American Christians are far from educated in their own faith. Prime example, Marjon.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
The problem is I know church doctrine, history, and belief.

Highly doubt it. Most American Christians are far from educated in their own faith. Prime example, Marjon.

My faith is, MY faith, no one else's. What do you know of my faith?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
My faith is, MY faith, no one else's. What do you know of my faith?

Christianity is not YOUR faith. It is a doctrined faith with set rules and practices. If you don't swallow the pill whole, you're not a Christian. If you don't want to swallow the pill whole, then why believe it at all?

If you're claiming Christianity and not adhering to it, you're a liar. If you're not claiming christianity, then I don't know of your faith.

Problem is, you've rather bluntly stated that you are a Christian. That means, act like it.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 07, 2010
Religion is irrelevant when it comes to jurisprudence in a free society. Law must be neutral with respect to religion, and must not be based on any particular religion or lack thereof.

Law must be based on objective and known facts and precedent, if applicable -- things that no honest and rational individual can deny or dispute, once made aware of.

Quite simply, religion of any sort has no place in this discussion.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
How do you determine 'no chance'?
Very simple: lack of a sufficiently sophisticated brain.

How do you determine the sophistication of a brain? The person referenced was declared dead. Obviously they were wrong, but they made that determination based upon 'accepted' criteria. Would you have killed that kid?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
Religion is irrelevant when it comes to jurisprudence in a free society. Law must be neutral with respect to religion, and must not be based on any particular religion or lack thereof.

Law must be based on objective and known facts and precedent, if applicable -- things that no honest and rational individual can deny or dispute, once made aware of.

Quite simply, religion of any sort has no place in this discussion.

Why do the atheists always bring it up?
Morality and ethics do have a role and as religions have motivated both, they deserve consideration.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
My faith is, MY faith, no one else's. What do you know of my faith?

Christianity is not YOUR faith. It is a doctrined faith with set rules and practices. If you don't swallow the pill whole, you're not a Christian. If you don't want to swallow the pill whole, then why believe it at all?

If you're claiming Christianity and not adhering to it, you're a liar. If you're not claiming christianity, then I don't know of your faith.

Problem is, you've rather bluntly stated that you are a Christian. That means, act like it.

And this from someone with no faith. I'll give your words the due consideration they deserve, none.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
How do you determine the sophistication of a brain?
In the case of mammals -- a known quantity -- it's quite simple: size and structure. When a brain is smaller than that of a pig, then it can't exhibit even the cognitive sophistication of a pig. Of course, a brain that's both smaller than a sow's, AND lacking critical structures such as a developed neocortex with sulci and gyri -- such a brain is even more certainly and unequivocally incapable of human cognition.
The person referenced was declared dead.
That just shows that the tests they administered to determine brain death, proved to be not 100% reliable. However, there was clearly a brain inside the skull, and the brain was relatively well-formed and intact, and of a reasonable complexity. It had even been known to manifest human consciousness in the past...
Would you have killed that kid?
I would probably have decided not to attempt further resuscitation. Erroneously, in that case: the tests need improvement.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
Morality and ethics do have a role and as religions have motivated both, they deserve consideration.
In a free society, morality and ethics as ESTABLISHED BY LAW and ENFORCED THROUGH COERCION must be agreeable to all, regardless of individual religion. Otherwise, such laws would be justifiably perceived as unfair by those who don't adhere to the particular religious tenets from which the laws were derived.

Therefore, such legislated ethics must be based on objective and religiously-neutral considerations of justice and social harmony. So once again, religion is irrelevant when it comes to courts and the rule of law.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
The brain is redundant and plastic (within limitations.) There have been instances of hemispherectomy -- surgical removal of an entire hemisphere. The brain can also, to some extent, re-route around damaged areas, and recruit relatively less vital areas to fill in the roles of more critical regions that have been damaged or destroyed.

However, a brain that lacks the requisite volume and structure in the first place, is simply incapable of human-scale cognition. A sufficiently developed neocortex, for instance -- even if present in terms of only one single hemisphere -- is a mandatory prerequisite for self-awareness and human consciousness. Some other mandatory prerequisites: a reasonably intact limbic system, crucially including the Hippocampus, the Caudate nucleus, the Thalamus, the Cingulate cortex, and the Amygdala. Without these structures, there's no short-term or working memory or learning, no emotional response, no sensory integration or filtering, and no coordination.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
PE if you found out later that you were wrong in not attempting further resuscitation, would you have felt guilty? Or is that another hypothetical question you refuse to answer?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
So once again, religion is irrelevant when it comes to courts and the rule of law.

History is not irrelevant. How do you know where you are going if you don't know where you have been?
Juries (and judges) can create or change laws based upon their experience, from any source.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
PE if you found out later that you were wrong in not attempting further resuscitation, would you have felt guilty?
If I made my decision after adequate consideration and based on reasonable evidence, I would see no reason to feel guilty.

Look up the concept of "triage": it's best to allocate medical resources toward patients who have a reasonable chance of survival, rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (bankrupting families and entire societies in the process) in ICU hopeless cases just on the off chance they might pull through.

And that's just from fiscal considerations, quite aside from 99% of the time giving false hope to grieving family members -- and for all appearances, profiting from their desperation.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
So once again, religion is irrelevant when it comes to courts and the rule of law.

History is not irrelevant.
History is not religion. And religion is not history.
Juries (and judges) can create or change laws based upon their experience
Not in my country. In my country, laws are created by specifically elected and narrowly specialized law-makers, not by judges or juries. Additionally, no law can run counter to the Constitution. And I think that's the way it ought to be, both here and everywhere.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
no law can run counter to the Constitution.

What country do you live in?
The Constitution limits the power of the federal government. Most federal laws today run counter to the Constitution.
Check out the responsibilities of a juror:
http://fija.org/
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
Most federal laws today run counter to the Constitution.
I'll trust the opinion of the Supreme Court on this matter, just a tad more than I'd trust yours. No offense intended.
Check out the responsibilities of a juror
The responsibility of judges and jurors (as well as the executive branch) is to interpret and apply the law, not to create or change law.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 07, 2010
And this from someone with no faith. I'll give your words the due consideration they deserve, none.
And now plagarism. How Christian of you.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
It seems the more progressive a person is, the more hateful and spiteful and ignorant they become. KKK and Nazis and PE all agree defective people, are less human than they are. Same goes for differnt races and religions.

http://www.breitb...-poland/
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@freethinking,

A fine display of hate and spite. But you are not a Sith Lord yet, grasshopper.

P.S. What's your definition of "defective people"?

P.P.S. Helen Thomas is right, even if not politically correct. The Russians and Europeans currently occupying the land formerly known as Palestine, have no ancestral claim on that land: they descend from Eurasian peoples who converted to Judaism without ever setting foot in what's today known as Israel. On the other hand, the people who have been displaced from the land have a direct ancestral claim to it, but are denied right of return. The whole situation is a travesty, and no the Holocaust does not justify this ongoing idiocy: one doesn't atone for a terrible wrong by creating yet another one. And I really dislike being forced to fund this travesty with my tax dollars, against my will...
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
Pinkie, it really doesn't matter if the people who returned to Palestine over 100 years ago were Jewish or not. The purchased the property and continued to purchase land.
The fact that all the Arabs surrounding them attacked in 1948 gave them a right to defend and take some land back.
"The Second Aliyah immigrants were primarily idealists, inspired by the revolutionary ideals then sweeping the Russian Empire who sought to create a communal agricultural settlement system in Palestine. " http://en.wikiped...alestine
One would think you socialists would have supported such efforts.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
"Between 1922 and 1947, the annual growth rate of the Jewish sector of the economy was 13.2%, mainly due to immigration and foreign capital, while that of the Arab was 6.5%. Per capita, these figures were 4.8% and 3.6% respectively. By 1936, the Jewish sector had eclipsed the Arab one, and Jewish individuals earned 2.6 times as much as Arabs. In terms of human capital, there was a huge difference. For instance, the literacy rates in 1932 were 86% for the Jews against 22% for the Arabs, but Arab literacy was steadily increasing.[162]"
http://en.wikiped...alestine
We can see why the Arabs were upset. The Jewish immigrants out performed the locals.
""The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history,""
http://www.physor...879.html
If ethnicity is a claim, the Jewish one is a valid as the Arab. But if the Philistines were Minoan, and not Arab, what claim to they have?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2010
The problem with people such as marjon and freethinking, is that they can't tell the difference between antisemitism and antizionism.

They also can't tell the difference between embryos and human beings.

Being so generally and thoroughly confused must be a very hard thing to live with. I offer my sincere sympathy and condolences.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2010
We can see why the Arabs were upset. The Jewish immigrants out performed the locals.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Jews had schools and the arabs refused to attend them for fear of Zionist propaganda, would it? Kinda like how creationists homeschool their kids so they won't learn the "evil lie" that is evolution and science, right, marjon?
It seems the more progressive a person is, the more hateful and spiteful and ignorant they become. KKK and Nazis and PE all agree defective people, are less human than they are. Same goes for differnt races and religions.

HAHAHHA. Progressive KKK, man you must have some good drugs.

The woman you're refering to is the first generation American children of two Lebanese. Her personal bias would have nothing to do with that either.

You two just crack me up.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
Why didn't the Arabs have their own quality schools?
Muslims have their own schools now promoting hate for Jews and infidels.
Progressive KKK

Why do the 'progressives' get a pass on racial slurs? If they were so 'progressive' why do they make them?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
The problem with people such as marjon and freethinking, is that they can't tell the difference between antisemitism and antizionism.

They also can't tell the difference between embryos and human beings.

Being so generally and thoroughly confused must be a very hard thing to live with. I offer my sincere sympathy and condolences.

The problem with socialists like Pinkie, et al, is they have no respect for the rights of individual human beings. They talk big about 'human rights' and democracy, but not about the rights of every individual to his life and property. They prefer the rights of the mob over individual rights. That is how millions of undesirable people can be murdered by socialists.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2010
And so, with epithets, acrimony, and baseless accusations now on vivid display, I hereby declare this discussion brain dead. Time to unplug life support...
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
And so, with epithets, acrimony, and baseless accusations now on vivid display, I hereby declare this discussion brain dead. Time to unplug life support...

What baseless accusations?
It is interesting how 'progressives' attack Christians and Jews but are quite mute about Muslims who restrict womens' rights, are openly hostile to homosexuals, oppose free speech and free elections preferring theocratic rule. Is it because the Muslims will actually kill the progressives for their criticisms?
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
I think I just proved that PE and progressives has no grasp of history, science, and human dignity. Progressive say one thing, mean another.

Defective people are people progressive consider sub human, they include Christian, Jews, Conservatives, unborn babies, brain damaged, down syndrome, the down and out.

It is conservatives that take care of the weak, just look at the stats about who give to charities. The more rich and powerful progressive, the less they give to charities. I havent made any baseless acusations. I just brought out facts. It is the progressive SH/PE that have made baseless accusations, and refuse to answer basic hypothetical morality questions.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
SH case in point, you mentioned that people such as marjon and I homeshool our kids. Well I cant speak for marjon, but my kids attend public schools, and they are all top of their class.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
"I think this may be the final answer to two questions that have appeared baffling for years, specifically: why do the arguments of Liberals appear to be so illogical, and, why do Liberals hurl so many insults? "
"If you read or watch Liberal media - Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Kos, and on and on and on, you can't miss the insults. Olbermann is famous for having an actual section of his show titled "Worst Person in the World.""
"The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate."
"First, don't respond to insults with insults. That's exactly what they want. Then they can claim, "The argument broke down into name-calling, and nothing was proven on either side. " Ignore their stupid insults and clobber them with the facts. "
http://www.bigpic...e_final_
Keep up the good work freethining.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
Why didn't the Arabs have their own quality schools?
Muslims have their own schools now promoting hate for Jews and infidels.

Because as you hint at in your comment, the Arab schools were solely theistic. Religion doesn't teach you to read, write, or much of anything not required for belief. Most religious organizations have a vested interest in keeping their adherants rather unschooled as is often evidenced by your commentary.
What baseless accusations?
Just about everything you assert.
It is interesting how 'progressives' attack Christians and Jews but are quite mute about Muslims
That's not true either.
I think I just proved that PE and progressives has no grasp of history, science, and human dignity.
I'm not the one who called the KKK a "progressive movement".
Defective people are people progressive consider sub human
It's the assertion of your religion that all people are born flawed. I think we're done here.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Religion doesn't teach you to read, write, or much of anything not required for belief. Most religious organizations have a vested interest in keeping their adherants rather unschooled as is often evidenced by your commentary.

That was not how Harvard University started. Religion motivated the early settlers in New England to teach their children to read. They wanted all to be able to read the Bible for themselves.
Cite examples of 'progressives' attacking Muslims in the press in the same manner they attack Christians and Jews. The Boston Globe was afraid to print the controversial cartoons of Mohamed.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
SH your ignorance of Christianity is shown again. Yes Christianity consider ALL people flawed. However two points, this belief means no-one can say they are better than another (in other words we are all equal), and the second is that Christianity also believe all people have worth.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
SH your ignorance of Christianity is shown again. Yes Christianity consider ALL people flawed. However two points, this belief means no-one can say they are better than another (in other words we are all equal), and the second is that Christianity also believe all people have worth.

As a corollary, all people have hope. Christians believe God will forgive if one truly repents, even though their fellow Christians may not forgive. This concept inspires optimism that people can change for the better.
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
what have we learned about progressives?
1. They are generally are racists.
2. They believe that the ends justify the means so lying is ok if it advances their cause.
3. They have no problem denigrating people who disagree with them.
4. They have little or no understanding of history, religion.
5. If you want to watch them squirm ask them the difference between what they believe and what Nazis, Communists, KKK believe.
6. They are so blinded by their theology that they cannot say that an unborn baby is alive and human.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
SH your ignorance of Christianity is shown again. Yes Christianity consider ALL people flawed. However two points, this belief means no-one can say they are better than another (in other words we are all equal), and the second is that Christianity also believe all people have worth.
Utterly laughable. When one peers through the thin veil of religious intent, one recognizes that not the ideals, but the man driving those ideals has only the worst of intent for any follower.

I leave you with this:

Primates of all types typically have difficulty envisioning a reality in which there isn't an angry alpha male giving directions.

frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2010
When one peers through the thin veil of religious intent, one recognizes that not the ideals, but the man driving those ideals has only the worst of intent for any follower.
"The man"? is there one and only one?
How about Buddhism?
How about those who gave their lives to save people?

Primates of all types typically have difficulty envisioning a reality in which there isn't an angry alpha male giving directions.
What do you know about bonobos?
Are humans primates, too?
Who is giving me directions?

The concept of "alpha males" is of no worth because it doesn't help to explain anything. It is only an effort of some reactionaries to anthropomorphize animals.