|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 23:01:54 GMT -5
didn't the Greeks only have one God, too, but there were many persons that made up their god. Care to cite any Greek authors to back up that claim? The Greeks believed in many gods. They didn't believe that all the gods made up one God. There is some reason to believe that some of the Greek authors may have held beliefs tending somewhat toward monotheism, but not what you describe. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three are one God, not three gods.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 23:20:04 GMT -5
From the article you cited: This still requires that an egg combine with sperm in order to create a fertilized egg. An egg and sperm are still required, even if they are the products of embryonic stem cells. Or an egg and some other cell, as is the case with somatic-cell nuclear transfer. They are sitting in test tubes or Petri dishes. Some have been frozen. More are being made every day to assist couples who are unable to conceive on other ways. They are being used to implant in women who are willing to carry a child for a couple. Are you saying in vitro fertilization should be made illegal? Unless it can be done without fertilizing any "excess" embryos or resulting in the death of fertilized embryos, yes. And how can you prove that the person on drugs (or with a cooled brain, etc.) is not conscious? Because their brain does show the signs that are typically associated with consciousness? Because the person later has no memory of consciousness or of time passing? Neithr of these are proof that there is no consciousness. The first is evidence that suggests that either the person is not conscious or that his consciousness is not connected to his brain. Note that you've diverged from the original question of whether consciousness is purely physical. Even if consciousness can be lost when disconnected from the brain, that mere fact would not offer proof that conscious itself is a merely physical phenomenon. The nature of every man's experience proves that it is not. You know you are conscious. With only physical matter, how would there even be a 'you' to possess a consciousness? Nothing conclusive, but there's nothing to prove that consciousness is lost, either. If you forget everything that happened prior to 1995, does that mean you were not really conscious before that date? Consciousness does not require memory. My statement is that you cannot prove that consciousness is lost. The impossibility of proving a negative is a generally accepted principle. Indeed, it is the claim "consciousness is lost" that is exraordinary and which require extraordinary proof. Obviously absolute morality derives from the one which is true, not the thousands which are false. The human mind is capable of conceiving of certain absolute moral principles, which have been called "natural law". One of these is that we should not commit murder. This has generally been understood by most people throughout history as a correct moral rule. Matthew 5:38-42 was not a change of absolute morals. Leviticus 24:19-20 was not necessarily a statement of absolute morality, but something more like a general guideline, which at the time was to be implemented in the Jewish government. Jesus himself even stated that not every provision of the Old Testament was to be considered an absolute moral statement in Matthew 19:8: "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." A more clear absolute moral statement is the prohibition on murder.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2008 2:02:46 GMT -5
This still requires that an egg combine with sperm in order to create a fertilized egg. An egg and sperm are still required, even if they are the products of embryonic stem cells. Or an egg and some other cell, as is the case with somatic-cell nuclear transfer. I think you missed the point. You start with a stem cell that is available from the stem cell lines in existence. The researchers were able to have these stem cells develop as sperm and oocytes. Once you have the oocyte, it can be enucleated and the full set of existing DNA can be injected. The oocyte then begins to divide and develop like any fertilized oocyte. The new individual is a clone of the individual that donated the DNA. Given the techniques available, there are always extra fertilized eggs. That would be one thing. I guess you will have to provide your definition of consciousness. In general an organism that is not aware of its existence is not considered to be conscious. As I said, that is an extraordinary claim and you will need to come up with extraordinary proof that there is consciousness outside of the body. BTW - there is $1+ million available if you can demonstrate this. If you stop the physical processes in the brain, consciousness ceases. If you modify the physical processes in the brain consciousness is modified. If you map the physical processes within the brain you can determine activity associated with conscious activity. These are testable and reproducable. Can you offer any proof that in the absence of any physical activity in the brain there is consciousness? Yes there is. Inject the drugs and the person becomes unconsciousness. Cool the brain and the person becomes unconsciousness. Subject the brain to massive trauma and the person becomes unconsciousness. All of these things indicate a loss of consciousness. If you have a different definition for consciousness please note it. That would indicate you were at one time conscious of your state of being. That is very different from having your brain activity discontinued and having only consciousness of what happened before and after the event, and no recollection of what happened while you were unconscious. Consciousness is usually defined as having an awareness of one's environment. Being aware of one's own existence. Being aware of sensations. Having thoughts. All of these can be tested. When none of them are positive, the subject is generally considered unconscious. This is not shown to be the case in nature or in many other cases. What proof do you have that shows this? How did you arrive at this? Murder yes. Homicide no. By definition, murder is illegal. But is all homicide murder?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 28, 2008 5:04:49 GMT -5
I think you missed the point. I did not. The point is that neither a stem cell nor an egg nor a sperm is an individual. A new individual is created upon either uniting egg with sperm or transfering DNA from a somatic cell into an enucleated ovum. Whichever method is used, the original cells which together have the potential to develop into a new individual are not as yet a new individual. Potential is not actual. That's not an accurate description of the study as described in the article. The researchers have caused stem cells to develop into "early forms of cells that eventually become eggs or sperm". Even assuming that these cells can be made to develop fully into eggs and sperm, the creation of a new individual still requires the uniting of a sperm with an egg. The egg and sperm are not necessarily derived from the same individual, but even when they are, the resulting individual would not necessarily be genetically identical to the donor. The article did mention producing eggs for use in cloning (nuclear transfer), but that use would render sperm superfluous. The point of producing both sperm and eggs is to enable a more conventional form of conception ("It would not be reproductive cloning as fertilisation would involve only one set of gametes produced in this way and therefore a unique embryo would form."). You seem to be implying an additional word, making that: aware of its physical existence. The definition of consciousness does not require that. Perhaps behind that implication lies the assumption that there is nothing but physical existence? Even if consciousness requires the body, consciousness itself is by its nature outside the body. Can you offer any proof that nothing exists besides physical matter? Or that consciousness can occur with only physical material and nothing else? These things result in the appearance of unconsciousness, but they are not proof that the seemingly 'unconscious' individual does not experience awareness and thoughts which do not register in memory. There's no way to definitively discern the difference, after the fact, or even during the event by an outside observer, between absense of consciousness and a lapse of memory. "Being aware of one's own existence", in particular, and "having thoughts", are closer to the definition of consciousness, as consciousness itself doesn't require sensory input from the environment. Neither of these can be tested directly. The physical correlates of thoughts in the brain can be tested, but to call that the same as directly testing for the presence of thoughts is to presume that thoughts cannot occur without a physical medium. You cannot prove with purely physical means that something non-physical does not exist or occur. Think about what consciousness implies. Can physical matter be aware of itself? Can molecules or collections of molecules possess awareness of anything? Is awareness itself an illusion? If so, who is being deluded? The assertion that consciousness involves only physical matter is a logical contradiction in itself. General observation, including the fact that (most) murder has been illegal under most governments. Must we go over this again? Murder is unlawful, which is not necessarily equivalent to statutory illegality. In the absence of any civil government, murder would still be possible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2008 9:02:34 GMT -5
I did not. The point is that neither a stem cell nor an egg nor a sperm is an individual. This is true. Transferring the DNA from a somatic cell is the method. The new individual is created without the requirement of a donor oocyte or sperm. The ooctye is grown from the stem cell and the DNA is added. Nope. The created oocyte is enucleated and DNA is inserted from somatic cells of the organism you wish to clone. The sperm cell is not needed. The oocyte is only needed as a container. All of the DNA comes from the DNA extracted from the somatic cell. True, the egg and sperm produced by this method could be used as you stated. But the oocyte could also be used as the container and the DNA injected would mean the developing individual would be identical to the DNA donor. I am not supplying the word, that is the definition. As I pointed out, perhaps you have a different definition you would like to put forth. Can you offer proof to show otherwise? Yet with all the people who claim this sort of thing there has never been any proof. I listed several examples of situations that demonstrate consciousness goes away when the brain ceases to function. You have yet to offer proof of your contention that it does not. Again, I am working with the widely accepted definition of consciousness. If you are not, you should post your definition. These tests have been preformed on a great variety of organisms. Even the lowly planaria exhibits consciousness. Of course there is. Just as you might test planaria. A mild electric shock will cause them to contract. If a light is used in conjunction with the shock it can be demonstrated that the planaria actually learns. And by feeding their nerve cells to other planaria they new ones will exhibit the same trait even though they have never been shocked. The physical nerve tissue transfers their "consciousness", if you will, that following the bright light there will be a shock. Not required but not excluded either. Thinking, reasoning, problem solving, will all generate activity within the brain. This activity can indeed be detected. When all of the brain activity ceases, there is no indication of consciousness, as generally defined. There is no proof that Mars is not inhabited by the offspring of Captain Jack Carter of Virginia and the Princess of Mars (for the Edgar Rice Burroughs fans) either but so far no one has offered credible proof that this is the case. Well, ou are physical matter. Are you aware of your self? Perhaps not collections of these fundamental particles but put them together into a group of neurons and they, just like magnetic particles on a spinning disk, small depressions in aluminum foil on polycarbonate, or electrical charges stored in floating gate transistors, can store information. The tangle of neurons and dendrites can also process information entering the brain and can recall and output information stored within the brain. Unless, of course, these neurons stop working. Well, there does need to be some energy source. Explain the logical contradiction. It would seem you wish to redefine murder for the purpose of this discussion. By definition, murder is illegal. I think that has been established unless you have an alternate definition. So you are saying that some other non-civil authority could declare some forms of homicide to be illegal/unlawful? And that would make that type of killing murder? I guess we will have to until you can provide definitions. These are the first definitions for the words in question from the Houghton Mifflin dictionary. consciousness: The state or condition of being conscious. conscious: Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Unlawful: Not lawful; illegal. Illegal: Prohibited by law. Which definitions would you like to use?
|
|
|
Post by Greek on May 28, 2008 9:33:24 GMT -5
the Greeks only have one God, They didn't believe that all the gods made up one God. There is some reason to believe that some of the Greek authors may have held beliefs tending somewhat toward monotheism. Paul preached to the Greeks, and told them, that he was preaching about their god, too. It is in the bible. They had a special temple to their unknown god {God}.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2008 11:46:21 GMT -5
They didn't believe that all the gods made up one God. There is some reason to believe that some of the Greek authors may have held beliefs tending somewhat toward monotheism. Paul preached to the Greeks, and told them, that he was preaching about their god, too. It is in the bible. They had a special temple to their unknown god {God}. The unknown god was just one of the greeks many gods. A safety god in case one was missed.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 29, 2008 4:39:32 GMT -5
In one method, but not in the method that makes use of the sperm. But there is still the requirement for an oocyte (produced from a stem cell, as all oocytes ultimately are anyway). What's your point? Genetically identical (barring mutations), but still a separate individual. That is not the definition. From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]: Essentially, "awareness" or "awareness of one's own existence". Not necessarily physical existence, but existence. If there is only physical existence, then consciousness would mean consciousness of physical existence, but "physical" is not part of the definition itself. Consciousness without awareness of one's physical environment or body would still be consciousness if one knew one existed and could have thoughts. Yes -- consciousness. Who/what is conscious of your thoughts? The fact of consciousness, which ever person has direct witness to, is proof of the existence of the soul. How could there be? What would qualify as proof, to your mind? I don't know whether it does or doesn't and that's not my contention. My main point is that consciousness is proof of something non-physical which is experiencing the consciousness, not that the consciousness does not depend on the body. Consciousness may depend on the body, but it certainly depends on the soul. It's impossible to prove that another being is conscious. What can be tested is whether the being responds to stimuli, stores and retrieves information, etc. By these definitions a machine could possess "consciousness". We cannot prove that another being is not simply acting as a machine without actual awareness. What definition of 'consciousness' are you using that allows you to say that? Again, this relies on the assumption that thinking cannot occur without the neural correlates that accompany it. It's an assumption that has not been proven. I am not physical matter. My body is physical matter. It is not aware if itself, though it does process and store information about itself. I am aware of both myself and of it. Funny, that's what it seems you want to do. I've already provided the definition of murder as unlawful. Yes. Civil laws are not the only laws. There are physical laws, laws of nature, laws of God, moral laws, laws of logic, and natural law. ( source) And an example:
|
|
juju
Senior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by juju on Jun 8, 2008 21:16:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Well on Jun 9, 2008 13:52:21 GMT -5
The argument has been transformed into a debate about the nuts and bolts of life which while it is easy to get bogged down in the semantics, it does not address the moral issue of whether or not contraception is acceptable.
Contraception by barrier (condom or female equivilent) does not harm a "life" as the fusion of egg and sperm has not taken place. Anything that prevents implantation of the fertilised egg or shedding of implanted egg or death of foetus must be considered an extinguishing of life.
As mentioned above by a few posters, a life is a God-given gift, it is not ours to take on a whim and while one may argue that the foetus knows nothing, is not conscious, it is surprising how quickly the fertilised egg aquires the things that make it human. At just 4 weeks, eyes, ears and limbs are forming.
If a life without consciousness is regarded as valueless, then why is there such protection for those in a persistive vegetative state? Surely then life has a value, regardless of how it might be perceived?
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 9, 2008 15:06:57 GMT -5
In your unconscious state, those of you who are debating slightly to the left of the topic, you must realize that if all males of just one generation were sterilized, we might slow down the rapid population increase and thus slow the deflation of this balloon you call earth. Furthermore, if males were sterilized, shows like Jerry Springer might go away since there would be no inbreeding.
That's the New World Order: Slow population and weed out inbreeds and those with an IQ of less than one hundred.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2008 11:13:32 GMT -5
Contraception by barrier (condom or female equivilent) does not harm a "life" as the fusion of egg and sperm has not taken place. Yet millions of living organisms die. How do you feel about vasectomy? Tubal ligation? So you view spontaneous abortion along with medical abortion? Suppose the mother engages, perhaps unknowingly, in activities that cause the loss of the embryo. Just wondering what things need to be aquired to make it a human. How formed do the eyes, for example, have to be? At least the ones you hear about in the news. From your post it seems that the value of life to you is based on the number of chromosomes in the cells.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2008 12:47:42 GMT -5
In one method, but not in the method that makes use of the sperm. But there is still the requirement for an oocyte (produced from a stem cell, as all oocytes ultimately are anyway). What's your point? I said you could produce an individual without needing sperm and eggs. Using the stem cell as a container and inserting the full compliment of DNA accomplishes that. Provide a testable example and we will move from there. You made the claim. Can you support it? I don't believe it exists. If you could communicate with an entity that has no physical presence it would be a great proof. You keep saying this but you offer no proof. Then you are stuck with demonstrating that there is a soul. One definition of being conscious is being aware of your environment. If I prick someone with a pin and they react I am reasonably sure that they are aware of their environment. It has been demonstrated many times that this is how the brain works. You are making a claim that would be equivalent to saying the moon of made of cheese. The burden of proof is all yours. Simple test - stop you brain and tell us what happened when you come back. So you are saying murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. No discussion there. What is homicide? Is there, in your mind, anytime homicide is not unlawful? Sure. But homicide does not violate the law of gravity. Not sure of you point here. Trespassing is illegal - might be a civil offense or a criminal offense.
|
|
|
Post by Well again on Jun 11, 2008 5:35:10 GMT -5
Contraception by barrier (condom or female equivilent) does not harm a "life" as the fusion of egg and sperm has not taken place. Yet millions of living organisms die. How do you feel about vasectomy? Tubal ligation? So you view spontaneous abortion along with medical abortion? Suppose the mother engages, perhaps unknowingly, in activities that cause the loss of the embryo. Just wondering what things need to be aquired to make it a human. How formed do the eyes, for example, have to be? At least the ones you hear about in the news. From your post it seems that the value of life to you is based on the number of chromosomes in the cells. Evidently you have chosen your moniker with much pride and while all the points you make have certain validity, they ignore the moral aspect which it seems to me, is the basis of the argument. It is also the basis for much debate amongst finer minds than ours, so it is not unreasonable for the moral argument to be presented here. If one believes in God, and has any degree of desire to please Him, then the moral dimension must be considered a legitimate part of any debate in which the believer engages whether or not the opposing party has any belief. That said, a secular argument is always easier to make as any reference to morals are dismissed as opinions grounded in uncertainty. Of course lack of scientific fact immediately handicaps the argument of the believer and as a result, it is impossible to win, however convincingly to position is presented. As I believe in God, I acknowledge that I cannot scientifically prove the validity of my position, but I stick to it nonetheless. To address the question of what makes a human - surely if the sperm and egg are human, then the resulting fusion but be classified as human? In a Petri dish in the lab, it would hardly be labelled "Non-specific life form". Surely anything that can change form and constitution, and increase in size, regardless of origin, must be considered a living thing? What makes a plant a living thing? As for spontaneous abortion, I suggest you are being facetious and the issue of vasectomy and tubal ligation addresses only half the question. Neither egg nor sperm are intended to exist indefinitely - the lifespan of a sperm is only four or five days at most, an egg perhaps two or three at most. They only take on a viable life form when the sperm fuses with the egg.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 11, 2008 5:37:25 GMT -5
Just wondering what things need to be aquired to make it a human. How formed do the eyes, for example, have to be? How would you answer that question?
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jun 11, 2008 10:20:28 GMT -5
a spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage-when it happened to me many years ago it was heartbreaking and it was a LIFE to me .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 11, 2008 10:52:45 GMT -5
Evidently you have chosen your moniker with much pride and while all the points you make have certain validity, they ignore the moral aspect which it seems to me, is the basis of the argument. Actually, the name choice was a spur of the moment thing when I was responding to an irrational post. I am not ignoring the moral issue at all. I am just trying to determine where you stand. You are implying that atheists are amoral. Morals can be defined. However, if your moral code is developed to obey a supreme being, it is not really a moral code but a set of commandments you follow out of fear. There is no morality in not reaching into the broken jewelry store window and taking the necklace while the police are watching. Morality might be defined as what people do when no one is watching. Of course, when you are following a moral code to please an omniscient being this becomes a problem. This is always an issue. Unless you know exactly what is happening it is difficult to make a judgment as to the morality of your actions. And I assume you are following the Judeo-Christian body of concepts and values. Could be. If you define a human as a living cluster of cells with 46 chromosomes as human. Other than its potential, with a lot of help, to develop into a human being, what human characteristics does this cell mass have? Have we departed from human beings? There are a number of traits that are used to determine whether something is alive or not. The basic 3: reproduction growth metabolism On earth they are usually carbon and water based. Some people think living things must be able to adjust (react) to their environment. Nope. Some times the action of the mother can, if not cause, certainly enable spontaneous abortion. In the lifetime of a sexually woman there is a great chance that a number of embryos will not implant and will be discarded. People wanting to have children will do things to enhance the ability of the embryo to implant. Are women who do not do these things at fault? I guess a tubal ligation and vasectomy could be considered 'barrier' methods of birth control. Although not widely used (or at all) what would a hysterectomy be in the birth control arena? Over doing it? Probably result in an ectopic pregnancy. And that opens up another area for discussion. What steps should be taken if the embryo decides to make some place other than the uterus home? If you consider it a human being... This is a tricky argument. Humans are not intended to exist indefinitely either. You are just looking at, in the scheme of things, a very small difference. A day of 100 years, when compared against 10,000 years, are very close. Viable? Both the egg and the sperm were viable. Just a shorter time. And, of course, they can not reproduce. But this is a slippery slope as well. Is blood alive? No DNA and no way to reproduce. I do not mean to nit pick here. But when people are going for fertility treatments, viable sperm is something they measure!
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 11, 2008 16:50:09 GMT -5
However, if your moral code is developed to obey a supreme being, it is not really a moral code but a set of commandments you follow out of fear. On what basis do you claim to know the motives of everyone who follows a moral code he believes to be derived from a supreme being (or "developed to obey" that being)? If the police are always watching, you can't assume that every person who does not take the necklace is refraining out of fear of the police and would take it otherwise. It might be, but that's not really a definition, just a motivational speech type comment. Atheists are left with the question of on what basis is their morality defined? On what basis do their deem it to be correct? Is it really morality if it is only arbitrarily defined? I hope one would not use a definition of 'human' that would exclude individuals with Down's syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 11, 2008 17:15:32 GMT -5
I said you could produce an individual without needing sperm and eggs. Using the stem cell as a container and inserting the full compliment of DNA accomplishes that. Only after it had developed into an egg... hence the point of the article. No testable example is required to establish the implications of the definition. They are your thoughts. You support it. How would you answer these questions? How would you explain the phenomenon of your consciousness? Of your awareness? Well, you are doing so right now... Stop and think. That is your proof. You are only thinking of this as an outside observer. Imagine someone pricks you with a pin -- how do you know that you are aware of your environment? Think only of your own awareness, not of the criteria you would use to show that something else is aware. You are experiencing your own consciousness, are you not? Wrong. Man has been to the moon and has disproved that claim. My claim is about something non-physical which has not been disproved. That test would not necessarily address my statement directly. Killing of a human being by a human being. Yes. Self-defense, defense of another person's life, execution for murder, certain types of accidents. I believe the point of the example was that before the legal eviction it was not trespassing and hence not a criminal offense, but it was a civil offense since it was an offense against another person's property rights. Similarly, even if abortion is not a criminal offense, it is an offense against another person's property/life rights.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 11, 2008 22:55:17 GMT -5
The moon is made of green cheese. The moon that your astronauts supposedly inspected was in a movie studio and in the desert of the earth.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 1:20:02 GMT -5
However, if your moral code is developed to obey a supreme being, it is not really a moral code but a set of commandments you follow out of fear. On what basis do you claim to know the motives of everyone who follows a moral code he believes to be derived from a supreme being (or "developed to obey" that being)? I said if your moral code is developed to obey a supreme being, it is not really a moral code but a set of commandments you follow out of fear. You are correct. I meant, and should have typed, "... because the police are watching". I disagree. I could narrow the statement to be: Morality is doing the right thing when no one is watching. I was allowing for amorality as well. I would argue that, when it comes to arbitrary, religious texts are high on the scale. If not, they would all agree. People have the ability to empathize and are capable of determining ethical grounds. People, through logic and reason, can derive normative principles of behavior. These two factors can lead to a behavior morally equal to, or perhaps preferable to, moral behavior promulgated by religious texts. I would hope not. But I think the real question is whether that cluster of 12 to 32 blastomeres is just a morula or a human being, regardless of whether or not it has an extra copy of chromosome 21.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 1:55:24 GMT -5
Only after it had developed into an egg... hence the point of the article. You start with a stem cell. You do not need an egg or sperm. You end with a zygote with a diploid number of chromosomes. The thoughts are generated by reactions within the brain, all of which are observable. It is actually possible to map the brain as it accomplishes tasks. My consciousness is a result of observable chemical and electrical activity in my brain. If encephalography shows no activity there is no consciousness. I know I am aware, or have been aware, of my environment because the physical brain retains the patterns as memory. Disable the brain and there are no memories created. I guess you could argue that even if a person's brain is not functioning they are fully conscious but they can not remember it nor is there any way to show that it happened. Kind of like the green invisible dragon in my garage. I am and the activity patterns could be observed. As physical activity. As I mentioned, there is a large invisible and undetectable dragon that lives in my garage and speaks to me, in a voice that only I can detect, about future events. But as soon as the dragon tells me I forget what was said. It has never been disproved that the dragon is there. You are claiming the same thing. That outside of the physical body, with the brain in a non-functional state, there is a consciousness that cannot be remembered or detected. And your argument to support that claim is that it has not been disproved. How so? You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. Drugs can shut down the brain. Your contention is that you would still have consciousness. I am just looking for some verification. So we are back to the point - homicide is murder only if it is illegal/unlawful. If you define a fetus as a person then this would be a crime and you could call it murder. But unlawful means there is, somewhere, a law prohibiting abortion. Do you know of one you could cite?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 1:57:05 GMT -5
The moon is made of green cheese. The moon that your astronauts supposedly inspected was in a movie studio and in the desert of the earth. Are you supposed to be revealing these facts? Danger Will Robinson! Was NASA afraid they would get stuck in the cheese?
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Jun 12, 2008 3:48:36 GMT -5
Contraception by barrier (condom or female equivilent) does not harm a "life" as the fusion of egg and sperm has not taken place. Yet millions of living organisms die. How do you feel about vasectomy? Tubal ligation? today's piece of unsolicited information: As far as I know, permanent sterilization (both vasectomy and tubal ligation) is prohibited in Poland. /caffeinated
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 12, 2008 8:39:05 GMT -5
How so? You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. Drugs can shut down the brain. Your contention is that you would still have consciousness. I am just looking for some verification. Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 9:03:26 GMT -5
Yet millions of living organisms die. How do you feel about vasectomy? Tubal ligation? today's piece of unsoliciated information: As far as I know, permanent sterilization (both vasectomy and tubal ligation) is prohibited in Poland. /caffeinated Even thought neither is 100% permanent, you are correct. Poland is an interesting place to study these things. They outlawed abortions in the early 1990s. Interesting outlook at: www.federa.org.pl/english/public/whoabor1.htm
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 9:07:02 GMT -5
How so? You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. Drugs can shut down the brain. Your contention is that you would still have consciousness. I am just looking for some verification. Wrong. I wonder which of the statements was wrong. • You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. • Drugs can shut down the brain. • Your contention is that you would still have consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by a mother on Jun 12, 2008 10:05:09 GMT -5
I was 18yrs of age, and we were pregnant. Parents were told and workers had a meeting with both sides. The wedding was planned and within a month we were married. The wedding had to be at home, workers orders even though it would have been a lot easier for my Mum to organise it at another venue which was way larger than our house. Mum and Dad did what the workers wanted. To keep it as quiet as possible. We were told that God would forgive us for repenting for fornication. The problem was the gossip, the whispering that went on for yrs. We had brought shame on the family name. I think the workers handled it at best they knew how under the circumstances and Mum did a great job. It was the gossip that got to me. Feeling I couldnt hold my head up. That I was second rate. My motherinlaw made sure I suffered. She refused to feed my baby, change his nappy, wind him. Treated him like a strangers child. That broke my heart as a young mother to witness this type of cruelty.Towards your own blood. My parents more than compensated with true love for the lack in my motherinlaw. No one discussed contraception ever. Abortion was out of the question for me. How often is the evil sin of gossip mentioned?
|
|