21 Feb 07
personally i bleleve it is extremly wrong in both ways (from a catholic and athiest stand point that is) first the catholic side, no child should be killed thats all there is to it, i dont remeber the exact facts but theres somethin like 44 billon babies are aborted every year, well its somethin around there, and now ask your self how many of those babies were going to be doctors with the cure for the common cold or world leaders or even popes for that matter. now the side for the athieists the details of what they do to the babies to abort them is so grusome im not even going to go into it lets just say if it happened to your or me hitler would even question the morality of it and the bottom line of it is that it is murder, the babie has a pulse and it is breathing, not air but it has the capabilty to
anyway i hope this helped you have a good one
21 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungExcept that the sperm does not reproduce. You may want to look up the definition of 'reproduction':
Except that the sperm does indeed reproduce.
I was mistaken when I said a zygote cannot reproduce. It is simply another stage in a circular pattern of reproduction. Gamete => zygote => fetus => embryo => baby => adult => gamete.
You can pick any stage in the circle as the thing which is being reproduced, but that simply depends on which part of ...[text shortened]... that cycle is "better" or "more human" than any other. At all times a human organism exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
The gamete is simply not an organism. You may want to look up 'organism' as well.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerFunny, it's a definition that was approved by the American Medical Association. Are philosophical discussions allowed to make any definition of terms that the individuals in the discussion want to even if that definition contradicts reality?
The simplest critique is that it is not a biological definition that can be applied to all (or even most) living species. It is a legal definition for legal purposes - and there's no a priori reason to accept it in a philosophical discussion.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhen should he? You don't have to look up the definition of death for a human being; you're allowed to make up your own according to your argument here. He should be able to do the same; after all, it's a philosophical discussion.
Except that the sperm does not reproduce. You may want to look up the definition of 'reproduction':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
The gamete is simply not an organism. You may want to look up 'organism' as well.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderInteresting, so when I use a term like 'fetus' you change the term I use and make the claim I said 'baby' if terms are that important, why don't you stick to those other people use as well? Seems like that also contradicts reality too when you change the words people use to make it fit your arguments.
Funny, it's a definition that was approved by the American Medical Association. Are philosophical discussions allowed to make any definition of terms that the individuals in the discussion want to even if that definition contradicts reality?
Kelly
21 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayBLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Your claim is a fetus is the same as a baby so far as the issues here are concerned. So I'm not changing the import of your argument. If you weren't a complete fool, you'd realize this. And you're a liar anyway; in this thread you've referred to abortion as "killing babies".
Interesting, so when I use a term like 'fetus' you change the term I use and make the claim I said 'baby' if terms are that important, why don't you stick to those other people use as well? Seems like that also contradicts reality too when you change the words people use to make it fit your arguments.
Kelly
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThose words should be looked at in context when I used them once that I can recall in this thread, as you change the rules to suit yourself, you changes words to suit yourself.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Your claim is a fetus is the same as a baby so far as the issues here are concerned. So I'm not changing the import of your argument. If you weren't a complete fool, you'd realize this. And you're a liar anyway; in this thread you've referred to abortion as "killing babies".
Kelly
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by jammerA truck driver used to amuse himself by running over lawyers he saw walking down the side of the road. Every time he saw a lawyer walking along the road, he swerved to hit him and there would be a loud "THUMP". Then he would swerve back on the road.
That's what he does best .. he's a lawyer.
One day, as the truck driver was driving along the road he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he would do a good deed and pulled the truck over.
"Where are you going, Father?" The truck driver asked.
"I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road," replied the priest.
"No problem, Father! I'll give you a lift. Climb in the truck." The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road. Suddenly, the truck driver saw a lawyer walking down the road.
Instinctively he swerved to hit him. At the last moment he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him, so he swerved back to the road and narrowly missed the lawyer.
Certain he should've missed the lawyer, the truck driver was very surprised and immediately uneasy when he heard a loud "THUMP". He felt really guilty about his actions and so turned to the priest and said, "I'm really sorry Father. I almost hit that lawyer."
"That's okay," replied the priest. "I got him with the door."
Was the priest's action morally wrong?
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderRead what I wrote again - I said "no a priori" reason. Your question is chasing a strawman.
Funny, it's a definition that was approved by the American Medical Association. Are philosophical discussions allowed to make any definition of terms that the individuals in the discussion want to even if that definition contradicts reality?
In any case, the approval of the definition by the AMA does not change my objection. The AMA proposed it in conjunction with a legislative act and had in mind medical support to legal questions around death (such as when property can be transferred/inherited, whether the doctor is culpable, say, for removing life-support from a brain-dead patient etc.) It certainly was not intended to define the human being.
Besides, that the AMA defined it thus does not mean it is above scientific objections. I have now repeatedly raised the simple zoological objection to this definition of death (and the definition of 'human being' you seem to derive from it) -- which you've simply ignored.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerOf course. By possibly damaging the trucker's door he has risked property that is not his own (not to mention the truck driver's No Claims Bonus).
A truck driver used to amuse himself by running over lawyers he saw walking down the side of the road. Every time he saw a lawyer walking along the road, he swerved to hit him and there would be a loud "THUMP". Then he would swerve back on the road.
One day, as the truck driver was driving along the road he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he ...[text shortened]... iest. "I got him with the door."
Was the priest's action morally wrong?
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO!!! As usual you only accept the views of experts when they agree with your religious based ideas. I would say defining when a human being is dead is necessarily defining what an alive human being is.
Read what I wrote again - I said "no [b]a priori" reason. Your question is chasing a strawman.
In any case, the approval of the definition by the AMA does not change my objection. The AMA proposed it in conjunction with a legislative act and had in mind medical support to legal questions around death (such as when property can be transfe ...[text shortened]... the definition of 'human being' you seem to derive from it) -- which you've simply ignored.[/b]
Your zoological objection is nonsensical. The definition would apply to those species who have the systems described in the Act.
22 Feb 07
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, according to the Act, species that do not have the necessary organ systems are not alive at all?
LMAO!!! As usual you only accept the views of experts when they agree with your religious based ideas. I would say defining when a human being is dead is necessarily defining what an alive human being is.
Your zoological objection is nonsensical. The definition would apply to those species who have the systems described in the Act.
EDIT: And please do not accuse me of being the one accepting the views of experts only when they agree with my preconceptions. I can recall several lengthy discussions (on Galileo, for instance) where you've rejected numerous historians and scientists out of hand for disagreeing with yours.
Defining when a human being is dead for specific legal purposes does not provide a blanket definition of when a human being is dead for all discussions; much less a definition of what an alive human being is. You should stop thinking that just because something is on the statutes of the US legal system, it has a privileged place in human thinking across disciplines -- especially philosophy.
EDIT2: And don't even get me started on "bridging" species that only have part of the relevant systems (e.g. notochordates comes to mind).