07-07-2002 21:04									#421
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Akka le Vil The mind is the spirit. The thing that allows us to think and to feel. Sentience is a work made by the mind, just like running is a work made by your body. Sentience is a level of thought, and the thoughts comes from the mind. Mind is the essence.

....and you're using this as a criterion as to when the state has interest in the life of the unborn sufficient as to compel it to protect that life? Talk about specious arguments!

How do you determine that someone or something has a spirit or essence? What do you define as thought? Is it possible to have a mind in the absence of the ability to think?

Clearly not all brain activity is thought. To most people thought is an internal mental activity that takes the form as complex symbolic statements. Thought to a person who has had the ability to hear and speak woukld obviously be different than that of someone who has never had hearing or speech, but the ability of the person to think can be clearly infered from that person's ability to process visual language.

	07-07-2002 22:05									#422
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Akka do you think it is okay to kill organisms without a mind?

Many organisms show a pain response when damage is inflicted on them without having a nervous system. Is it then okay to inflict pain on these organisms?

	07-07-2002 23:51									#423
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by November Adam Akka do you think it is okay to kill organisms without a mind? Many organisms show a pain response when damage is inflicted on them without having a nervous system. Is it then okay to inflict pain on these organisms?

Pain is never ok to inflict.
If the organism as a way to feel pain, then we should not inflict it, or at least try to reduce it as much as we can.
Now, researchs have to be made to see what IS pain and what is mechanical reaction to external interferences.
ie : stone break when hit. Though, I hardly think that stone feel any pain . On the other hand, I can only wonder wether the chemical reactions in that happen in some trees when they are "attacked" (read : some animals start eating them) are pain or just a reaction.

	07-07-2002 23:54									#424
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove ....and you're using this as a criterion as to when the state has interest in the life of the unborn sufficient as to compel it to protect that life? Talk about specious arguments!

I don't know if it's because I don't masterize sufficiently english to understand it, or if it's because it does not make sense at all, but I couldn't get what you meant.
Please reformulate in a way easier to understand.

quote: How do you determine that someone or something has a spirit or essence? What do you define as thought? Is it possible to have a mind in the absence of the ability to think?

I already answered it about humans in my first post : mind of a human is located in the brain. As long as the brain is not dead, the person have a mind.

quote: Clearly not all brain activity is thought. To most people thought is an internal mental activity that takes the form as complex symbolic statements. Thought to a person who has had the ability to hear and speak woukld obviously be different than that of someone who has never had hearing or speech, but the ability of the person to think can be clearly infered from that person's ability to process visual language.

What do you want to prove ?

	08-07-2002 00:31									#425
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by November Adam Akka do you think it is okay to kill organisms without a mind? Many organisms show a pain response when damage is inflicted on them without having a nervous system. Is it then okay to inflict pain on these organisms?

Mind or no mind. Pain or no pain. The organism is still human and deserves to be protected.

Case closed.

	08-07-2002 00:54									#426
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 Mind or no mind. Pain or no pain. The organism is still human and deserves to be protected. Case closed.

I love this guy.
"it's human and we have to protect it !"
"What's a human ?"
"Err... It's human I said !"
"Oh, I see... You know, according to a reasonning sustained by proof, it can be considered NOT human. Would you like to explain me why you consider it human ? Can you back it up ?"
"Oh, you bother me ! I put you on my ignore list ! Tssch, begone ! Now, it IS human ! I decided it !"
"..."

	08-07-2002 04:53									#427
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Avoiding commenting on your misinterpretation of the bible again, cloud?

	08-07-2002 05:19									#428
	Full PM-box? Change here!

There is no misinterpretation. The Bible doesn't mention specifics, so there are no specifics. It is speaking of abortion in general.

You are wasting my time! Try something else, please.

	08-07-2002 05:27									#429
	Inflate your Upload Space

If there are no specifics, why do you think it supports your view?

Is it not much more likely that you have decided to interpret it in a way that supports your pre-concieved notion?

You think I'm wasting your time by forcing you to consider your logical mistake? Alas, such is the nature of man...

	08-07-2002 05:31									#430
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger If you don't have a source, you're just blindly asserting.

UR, do you honestly believe that those who know their partners well are at a higher risk of contracting an STD than those that don't? That is absurd! All couples should get tested for STD's before having sex, then that way they know for sure.

I am not blindly asserting. I am making logical reasoning. Case closed.

What's with all this red herring stuff, btw?

	08-07-2002 05:33									#431
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu If there are no specifics, why do you think it supports your view? Is it not much more likely that you have decided to interpret it in a way that supports your pre-concieved notion? You think I'm wasting your time by forcing you to consider your logical mistake? Alas, such is the nature of man...

You know what? You're just trying to give me a hard time, and because of that I am paying no attention to this topic if you speak of it again. It's over.

	08-07-2002 05:35									#432
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

An unborn child is in fact an unborn child. It has the potential to become human but until there is a live birth this is nothing more than a potential.

I used to buy all this hardline anti-abortion crap until I had children of my own and went though the whole process. Now I don't know - so many pregnancies never make it to term - its a very iffy process. In my opinion, the welfare of the mother is much more important than the welfare of the unborn child.

I'm pro-choice as a result and I don't think a bunch of celibate priests and Christian fundamentalists know the first thing about it. Having said that I think abortion is a poor choice in most cases but I respect people's right to choose.

I've been in the delivery ward when a dead baby was born. The nurses were doing the birth cerificate for my son whilst they were doing the death certificate for the other child. It could very easily have been the other way round. That's life.

We've had 4 live births and lost one, our first, so don't tell me what to think about it until you've been there yourself.

Both my sisters have had miscarriages, one of them multiple miscarriages - but she's currently pregnant again - we're not going to send any congrats till she gets to 6 months with it. My sister in law had a couple of miscarriages. Friends of ours had a downes syndrome child, which they love dearly - they also had the courage to try again and had a child with no disability against all the odds.

I'm afraid this is an area where noone has the answers.

	08-07-2002 05:40									#433
	Put an end to popups!

quote: You know what? You're just trying to give me a hard time, and because of that I am paying no attention to this topic if you speak of it again. It's over.

I have to agree with Akka here...

Question: Do you know you are in the wrong, and therefore refuse to discuss the topic, or are you afraid to even consider it?

I understand that realizing that you have misinterpreted the source of your conviction might shake the very foundations of your faith, but that doesn't take away the reality that you have misinterpted the bible...

	08-07-2002 06:25									#434
	Increase the size of your Attachments

*wondering whether cloud9 is re-reading his bible or sticking his head in the sand*

	08-07-2002 08:11									#435
	Got spare money?

Why do I have to explain my viewpoints in dummy language?

Last edited by Mr. Nice Guy on 08-07-2002 at 08:30

	08-07-2002 08:30									#436
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 Why do I have give people my viewpoints in dummy language?

Now, now - that's no way to talk about the Bible

	08-07-2002 08:34									#437
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Now, now - that's no way to talk about the Bible

Well, you know. It's not that I don't think I have strong viewpoints on things, it's just I don't think people understand me because I'm so high-functioning. They expect me to come down on their level.

But you know, when you're high-functioning sometimes it is really hard to grasp what low-functioning is. You have to think about it for hours on end. Take Einstein for example. He could do advanced mathematics like a breeze, but he had real problems doing basic math. Strange, but true.

You see what I'm saying?

	08-07-2002 08:37									#438
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 UR, do you honestly believe that those who know their partners well are at a higher risk of contracting an STD than those that don't? That is absurd! All couples should get tested for STD's before having sex, then that way they know for sure. I am not blindly asserting. I am making logical reasoning. Case closed.

You are making some big assumptions:

1. There is a very high rate of one night stands (in the US)
2. There is a high rate of STD infections of those actively engaged in one night stands
3. Those who are engaged in one night stands do not use condoms for mutual protection.

You must substantiate these assumptions for your argument to have a chance.

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 What's with all this red herring stuff, btw?

Red herring is a logical fallacy.

	08-07-2002 08:39									#439
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 It's not that I don't think I have strong viewpoints on things, it's just I don't think people understand me because I'm so high-functioning.

quote: You see what I'm saying?

Yes - I think you're actually saying that you're a D/l

	08-07-2002 08:41									#440
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger You are making some big assumptions: 1. There is a very high rate of one night stands (in the US) 2. There is a high rate of STD infections of those actively engaged in one night stands 3. Those who are engaged in one night stands do not use condoms for mutual protection. You must substantiate these assumptions for your argument to have a chance.

I'll get back with you on that, as soon as I get my low-functioning ethics worked out, ok?

quote: Red herring is a logical fallacy.

So you mean to say that having irresponsible sex is worth the risk of contracting an STD or causing an unwanted pregnancy? That is so backwards. You need to get your priorities straight, dude.

	08-07-2002 08:46									#441
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Isn't sentience essentially the same as complex reasoning?

No. If so, some computer programs might be considered sentient.

IIRC, the distinguishing characteristic of sentience is self-awareness.

	08-07-2002 08:48									#442
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Laugh it up, bonehead! I'll prove it to you.

There is nothing in the Bible that defines what a zygote, embryo, or a fetus is. God see's the unborn as just the unborn. These terms do not exist in the Bible.

Science, however, came up with these terms as a way to organize the process of human development.

So since the scientific terms zygote, embryo, and fetus have no relationship to the Bible, then there are no specifics in the Bible. The Bible is speaking of the unborn in general.

There! Do you better understand now?

quote: Yes - I think you're actually saying that you're a D/l

Huh? What's a D/l?

	08-07-2002 08:50									#443
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Cloud9

could those terms not be in the Bible bacuse the people of the time had no term for them?

I am pro-life for fetuses and might be for Zygotes and Embryos, but you cannot base your arguments on the bible when you are arguing with those who do not beleive it

Jon Miller

	08-07-2002 08:50									#444
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 So you mean to say that having irresponsible sex is worth the risk of contracting an STD or causing an unwanted pregnancy? That is so backwards. You need to get your priorities straight, dude.

1. Do you know what does it mean by "irrelevant?"
2. You are assuming that your assumptions are right, wrt to the STD bull.
3. You are assuming that only so called "irresponsible" sex will have unwanted consequences.

Your arguments have holes so big that supertankers can go through with ease.

	08-07-2002 08:54									#445
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller could those terms not be in the Bible bacuse the people of the time had no term for them? Jon Miller

Well, it's quite obvious that science wasn't quite as advanced back then, and the people at that time had no real understanding of the process of human development.

	08-07-2002 08:57									#446
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger 1. Do you know what does it mean by "irrelevant?" 2. You are assuming that your assumptions are right, wrt to the STD bull. 3. You are assuming that only so called "irresponsible" sex will have unwanted consequences. Your arguments have holes so big that supertankers can go through with ease.

You do need someone to explain things to you in dummy language, don't you?

Irresponsible sex is defined as the failure to use contraceptives and to have your partner tested for STD's before having sex.

I don't see where you're coming from on the other "holes." Perhaps you should speak to me in dummy language.

	08-07-2002 09:14									#447
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Nothing worse than a cretin thinking he's a genius.

I propose to skip Cloud9 and spend time with pro-lifers that have actually something valuable to add to the discussion.

EDIT : I mean, if there is any left that has anything left to add.

Last edited by Akka on 08-07-2002 at 09:20

	08-07-2002 09:19									#448
	Support Apolyton

quote: Well, you know. It's not that I don't think I have strong viewpoints on things, it's just I don't think people understand me because I'm so high-functioning. They expect me to come down on their level.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Thanks for that, a good laugh is supposed to be good for you.

	08-07-2002 09:26									#449
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: There is nothing in the Bible that defines what a zygote, embryo, or a fetus is. God see's the unborn as just the unborn. These terms do not exist in the Bible. Science, however, came up with these terms as a way to organize the process of human development. So since the scientific terms zygote, embryo, and fetus have no relationship to the Bible, then there are no specifics in the Bible. The Bible is speaking of the unborn in general.

And you are still skirting the issue. The fact remains that the bible does not define when an embryo turns into a human being. You might be right. You might be wrong. The bible doesn't tell you which one. So we are left with science. Science says it isn't a human being until it is sentient.

As someone mentioned in a thread about evolution once: If God created this whole thing, he obviously expected us to figure it out for ourselves. Claiming that he left dinosaur bones in the earth trick us is just insulting him...

And likewise with this issue. Supporting your view based on a wishful interpretation of the bible would be insulting...

	08-07-2002 09:30									#450
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu And you are still skirting the issue. The fact remains that the bible does not define when an embryo turns into a human being. You might be right. You might be wrong. The bible doesn't tell you which one. So we are left with science. Science says it isn't a human being until it is sentient. And likewise with this issue. Supporting your view based on a wishful interpretation of the bible would be insulting...

Well, you're the one that asked, so, you get what you ask for. A wishful interpretation? I think I've made my point very clear. How much dumber can you get? Or are you still just trying to give me a hard time?