Atheism - Paradox

[josie_L]

if not it sure sounds like one

My real opinion is ESCR is fine … abortion is undesirable. As far as the government getting involved, almost always a bad idea (with a few exceptions, such as the military). It’s the libertarian in me (who would demolish the federal government, even education and health care spending, if it were up to me). Leave it all to the states (on that basis i.e. federalism, I find Roe v. Wade problematic; although I do also see the wisdom of that decision i.e. right to privacy based on the Fourth Amendment, so I think it’s a close call & at this point it’s too well ingrained to reverse).

If the church would give up on ESCR and take a prevention approach to abortion (rather than appealing to Uncle Sam for more intrusion into our lives) they would bother me less.

IPS (Induced pluripotent stem cells) are what is paving the way in stem cell research, you don’t need ESCR. I’m too tired to react to the rest. But will do so tomorrow.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The brain of an unborn child is in constant development so what do you mean by emergence of human mental functions?

can’t wait until artificial wombs become a reality. This way girls won’t have to face this tough choice anymore. Obviously no one would have to use the device; but it will moot the abortion debate (since if a girl didn’t want to take her pregnancy to term, she could simply opt for an artificial womb & agree to put the kid up for adoption).

You know I’ve read some pretty convincing data averring that our lower crime rates directly correlate to abortion. This isn’t really a good argument for abortion … I’m just saying.

 

[Eleve]

hey … don’t knock it till you try it

What an unfortunate choice of words…

Really? That’s very considerate. To the woman that is. What about the rest of humanity? I’m not saying harm her, I was thinking more of pursuasion.

The rest of the people currently alive don’t really enter into it. Some of them might be sad to know that there will not be a next generation, but that’s about the extent of the harm. The potential descendants of the unborn child are missing out on life, of course, but no more so than the potential descendants of another human being who simply chooses never to become (or cause another to be, if a man) pregnant. If I were alive in this scenario, I might be sad myself, but even if I did make any persuasion it would have to be immaculately uncoercive to be acceptable.

Murder is not as we define it. It was defined by God, not man. It is the willful termination of a life. You can add or subtract what you want to morph it into what you want, but murder is murder.

I only meant that “murder,” as a word, is generally taken to mean “homicide that is wrong.” The definition of murder excludes exceptions like self-defense, which means that murder has to be wrong simply by definition.

Why? Because again, you are determining the when. That makes it subjective. Of course the first part of your comment is what is clouding your judgement, IMHO. But nonetheless…

Well, you asked me to determine the when:

Human life begins in the womb if it doesn’t then where does it begin?

I’ll agree that placing the start of human life requires a subjective decision, but that doesn’t preclude the existence of moral absolutes. It only illustrates the difficulty of determining when those absolutes apply.

How bout we stop refering to the unborn as a fetus.

I’ll use whatever terms you prefer, so long as it’s never thrown in my face as evidence that I secretly believe an unborn child is a human person.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

IPS (Induced pluripotent stem cells) are what is paving the way in stem cell research, you don’t need ESCR. I’m too tired to react to the rest. But will do so tomorrow.

ESC’s are higher quality than ASC’s … and we don’t know the potential of ESC’s versus ASC’s (since the research was effectively halted by the Bush admin.). Even private industry stayed clear of ESCR (since the political climate was so unstable). So only time will tell (because the research is now moving forward under Pres. Obama).

I mean when will the RCC learn its lesson … stay out of science (and then perhaps science will be less inclined to expose the irrationality of religion).

 

[josie_L]

I’m over 30 … that’s normal (for a New Yorker anyway). I like to spread the love around equitably and generously (oh yeah … and safely of course)

What’s life without love? What’s love (between a man and woman who aren’t related of course) without physical affection? I’m just trying to meet public demand (and I think all hot women should have the opportunity of a connection with my greatness).

I’m just kidding … gosh

Are you sure you’re kidding? And I think you confuse lust for love.

 

[Eleve]

You know I’ve read some pretty convincing data averring that our lower crime rates directly correlate to abortion. This isn’t really a good argument for abortion … I’m just saying.

Freakonomics? Let me give you my Freakonomics impression: “Hey, guys! I’m going to twist a trivial correlation into an unjustified causative statement and then play it into your preconceived biases! I’m so avant-garde! So edgy!”

Just. No.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

What an unfortunate choice of words…

lighten up dude … it’s OK to kid around a little bit

what’s life without occasional (but of course tempered) stupidity? Boring I say …

 

[josie_L]

ESC’s are higher quality than ASC’s … and we don’t know the potential of ESC’s versus ASC’s (since the research was effectively halted by the Bush admin.). Even private industry stayed clear of ESCR (since the political climate was so unstable). So only time will tell (because the research is now moving forward under Pres. Obama).

I mean when will the RCC learn its lesson … stay out of science (and then perhaps science will be less inclined to expose the irrationality of religion).

IPS is not ASC. And when will you learn that science needs to follow ethical procedures.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Freakonomics? Let me give you my Freakonomics impression: “Hey, guys! I’m going to twist a trivial correlation into an unjustified causative statement and then play it into your preconceived biases! I’m so avant-garde! So edgy!”

Just. No.

the studies in this regard are hardly trivial (yes there has been studies). Don’t really want to bark up this tree; but the correlation is real & there’s good data showing a nexus. You’re inference is on point though … not a fact pro-choice folks ought to use in defense of abortion.

 

[Eleve]

lighten up dude … it’s OK to kid around a little bit

what’s life without occasional (but of course tempered) stupidity? Boring I say …

Haha… I wasn’t really criticizing… reread what I quoted, in the context of incest.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

IPS is not ASC. And when will you learn that science needs to follow ethical procedures.

science does follow ethical procedure (very strictly) … they just don’t define ethics according to the scriptures of ancient mythology.

 

[josie_L]

can’t wait until artificial wombs become a reality. This way girls won’t have to face this tough choice anymore. Obviously no one would have to use the device; but it will moot the abortion debate (since if a girl didn’t want to take her pregnancy to term, she could simply opt for an artificial womb & agree to put the kid up for adoption).

You know I’ve read some pretty convincing data averring that our lower crime rates directly correlate to abortion. This isn’t really a good argument for abortion … I’m just saying.

I’ve got pretty convincing data averring that a lower brain cell count directly correlates to abortion.

 

[josie_L]

science does follow ethical procedure (very strictly) … they just don’t define ethics according to the scriptures of ancient mythology.

When is a human “human”?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’ve got pretty convincing data averring that a lower brain cell count directly correlates to abortion.

perhaps … so then isn’t it better the fetus is aborted rather than being born to a intellectually inept mother

 

[Eleve]

I’ve got pretty convincing data averring that a lower brain cell count directly correlates to abortion.

Could you in turn not suggest that women faced with a decision regarding abortion are intrinsically less intelligent than women with the privilege of avoiding it?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Could you in turn not suggest that women faced with a decision regarding abortion are intrinsically less intelligent than women with the privilege of avoiding it?

why not … they usually are. The real ill of political correctness gone a-muck is that it enables ignorance and poor behavior.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

When is a human “human”?

when their biology can function independent of another human’s body.

 

[josie_L]

Could you in turn not suggest that women faced with a decision regarding abortion are intrinsically less intelligent than women with the privilege of avoiding it?

No, I did not mean that, so could you in turn not assume.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

alright I’m going to watch some TV & hit the sack (I say exceedingly goofy stuff when I get tired … already had to delete two posts )

 

[josie_L]

when their biology can function independent of another human’s body.

So according to your understanding of “human” you would allow abortion right up to the 9th month, great.