Atheism - Paradox

[humble_in_doubt]

No, I’m suggesting given time it will do so. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a developing human person.

none of this matters in the end. Society has already decided a fetus (particularly before fetal viability) is not a person; and does not enjoy rights separate from its mother. This is not only true in the United States, but also in virtually every other nation on earth (with a few exceptions; and those exceptions are becoming exceedingly rare).

From my perspective the fight is over; now it’s just a matter of the troops realizing and learning to live with the fact that they’ve lost the war. This might take a decade or two, but I doubt abortion will be discussed much ten or twenty years from now.

 

[Eleve]

Sounds kinda fatalist. Popularity doesn’t determine morality, and even if it did you still have to consider the fact that the Catholic Church is growing at a faster rate (percentage-wise) than the world population, and that countries like Nicaragua have outlawed abortion in all circumstances fairly recently.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Sounds kinda fatalist. Popularity doesn’t determine morality, and even if it did you still have to consider the fact that the Catholic Church is growing at a faster rate (percentage-wise) than the world population, and that countries like Nicaragua have outlawed abortion in all circumstances fairly recently.

I don’t see anything fatalist about what I said? And the CC is not growing faster than the population at large (it’s growing slower & shrinking as a percentage of the population). The Pentecostal church (and other evangelical sects) are growing faster than the population (and they’re the only reason why Christianity is still growing at all).

However, protestant Christianity is only growing in the third world because it represents a shift towards modern thinking. In the west we started thinking like that in the 15th century. Now the western trend is toward secularism. Likewise the trend is toward legalization of abortion. However, I did note there are some exceptions (almost exclusively in the third world where religious superstition runs high ).

 

[josie_L]

This is an interesting conversation because it raises the issue of eugenics. It is true that a simple and very low risk amniocentesis can determine whether or not a potential child will have any serious birth defects if the pregnancy is taken to term. As you mention Josie the test will also determine whether or not the child will have more minor defects. This is essentially eugenics. We can talk about the ethical problems with this new reality all we like; but it won’t change anything. We can expect genetic testing to become less invasive and more accurate over time (and therefore more popular); and at this point aborting a fetus is a matter of popping a simple pill. Science has all sorts of things in store for humanity. For instance, here’s an excerpt from an article you might find interesting:

Researchers at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College in New York were able to take samples of women’s uterine tissue and get the cells to regenerate in a laboratory. Human embryos successfully attached themselves to the engineered womb and began to grow; the experiment was stopped after a few days only because of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) regulations (link here).

You do realize that it was the eugenics movement (propelled by darwinism) that influenced Hitler to act as he did (also Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood began her eugenics practice by targeting Blacks, Italians, and other eastern/southern Europeans). So you can’t possibly be that blase about the situation. Don’t you think that some of the things that are being done can lead to something unsavory? And whatever happened to simple is better, why is it necessary to grow a baby in an artificial womb? How will an embryo/unborn baby react without the normal natural surroundings of his/her mother’s womb? I always felt that the bond between a mother and her unborn child was necessary for proper growth (I mean that more in a pyschological sense). This quite frankly scares me. Do you remember the old sci-fi movies where you saw people in pods or contained in water tanks where they were attached to devices to keep them alive, that’s what I think of some of these innovations. They seem inhumane and dangerous.

Spooky stuff huh? But we will eventually have these new technologies, the question is what will we do with them? If history is any indicator we will use them; and most likely to the fullest extent possible

 

[josie_L]

Sounds kinda fatalist. Popularity doesn’t determine morality, and even if it did you still have to consider the fact that the Catholic Church is growing at a faster rate (percentage-wise) than the world population, and that countries like Nicaragua have outlawed abortion in all circumstances fairly recently.

You are right, Levi. We should not stand and watch as morality is swept aside by scientific “innovations” (as if there’s nothing we can do about it). And It would be wrong to assume that just because its popular it’s ok (just remember the eugenics movement). And the Church is expanding in such places as Africa. In fact, they are doing wonderful things to help out the Africans. Building schools (people of all faith can join), hospitals, orphanages, even hotels . . . to bring about a better standard of living. These people would have none of these things were it not for the Church and the money that is being giving to her for them. It is something that I am deeply proud of.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Josie:

First, I don’t buy the fact that Hitler was all that much influenced by Sanger. Although she was a proponent of “negative eugenics” (particularly with regard to blacks), here’s a comment she made regarding the Nazi regime:

“All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria…”

Moreover, Sanger rejected any kind of eugenics that took the power away from those giving birth. Interestingly Sanger’s work with minorities earned the respect of leaders like Martin Luther King (though I admit I do find this somewhat peculiar … but it’s true). Strangely Sanger also thought masturbation was dangerous (although it was a common view during those times). She was also a socialist strangely enough.

For the record I’m no fan of Sanger. You’re right when you say we essentially have designer babies now. However, there’s no reason to believe there will be any racial bias in this modern form of eugenics. Indeed it’s likely black couples will opt for a black child, Latino couples a Latino child, a Polish couple a Polish child, etc. It’s just that parents, if given the choice, will likely opt for a tall, fit, intelligent, slim child with no negative genetic predispositions as opposed to a short, fat, ugly child who will likely develop a serious illness during their lives (seems like common sense to me). So IMO master race is not a fair term since this technology will not be exclusively applied to a single race or ethnicity. Don’t get me wrong – I also see potential dangers with this technology (although I think they can be mitigated & the potential benefit probably outweighs the risk).

 

[josie_L]

I don’t see anything fatalist about what I said? And the CC is not growing faster than the population at large (it’s growing slower & shrinking as a percentage of the population). The Pentecostal church (and other evangelical sects) are growing faster than the population (and they’re the only reason why Christianity is still growing at all).

However, protestant Christianity is only growing in the third world because it represents a shift towards modern thinking. In the west we started thinking like that in the 15th century. Now the western trend is toward secularism. Likewise the trend is toward legalization of abortion. However, I did note there are some exceptions (almost exclusively in the third world where religious superstition runs high ).

Please read this article: csmonitor.com/2005/0405/p01s03-wogi.html

---

If one were to prefer religion based on long-term, sustained growth, the Catholic Church would be the one to prefer. With almost 2,000 years of growth, the Church today is larger than it has ever been before, with over a billion members. More than half of all Christians are Catholics and more than one in six human beings is a Catholic. And the number is rising.

For example, in 1997—the most recent year for which global statistics are currently available—the Church had an overall increase in membership of over ten million, only a little more than half of which can be accounted for by baptisms under the age of seven, and an increase in spite of the loss of members due to death and defection.

And the Catholic Church is growing not only in the world at large but in America in particular. In 1998—the most recent year for which national statistics are available—the U.S. Catholic population had an overall increase of 455,000, including 162,000 conversions to the Catholic Church (i.e., cases of people joining other than baptisms of those below the age of seven).

It may be important to point this out to those who commit the “fastest-growing” fallacy and wish to represent the Catholic Church as stagnant or declining in membership. It is especially valuable to know the number of adult conversions per year, since an anti-Catholic might attempt to dismiss American Church growth as due only to infant baptisms or immigration.

Needless to say, the Catholic growth rates in both the United States and the world dwarf what any other church is doing. Nobody else in the world gets an net increase of ten million people in a year, and nobody else in America gets a net increase of half a million people in a year. And remember that these represent net increases in membership—after deaths and defections have been factored in—so the actual number of converts is significantly higher.

Even if we look at just U.S. membership growth without infant baptism, nobody else in America gets 162,000 new non-infant members in a year, nor does any other American church have an overall increase of half a million members a year. When you really look at the numbers, the picture that those who commit the “fastest-growing” fallacy often wish to paint of a stagnant, declining Catholic Church simply won’t hold up.

Ultimately though, as we said at the beginning, membership affiliation is to be determined by truth, not popularity or growth. And in the truth category the Catholic Church wins hands down.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005chap.asp

---

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062102008.html

---

The latest Vatican statistics confirm that the church’s population and ministerial workforce are continuing to shift to developing countries, especially those in Africa and Asia.

Figures released Feb. 12 showed that the overall number of Catholics increased to nearly 1.12 billion at the end of 2005, an increase of 1.5 percent from the previous year.

The Catholic growth rate was slightly higher than the rate of overall population increase, which was 1.2 percent. Catholics now represent 17.2 percent of the global population, the Vatican said.

The statistics were released in connection with the presentation of the 2007 edition of the Vatican yearbook, known as the Annuario Pontificio, which catalogs the church’s presence in each diocese.

The church’s population grew fastest in Africa, where the number of Catholics increased 3.1 percent in 2005, about half a percentage point higher than the overall population growth rate on the continent.

In Asia, the number of Catholics was up 2.7 percent, and in the Americas up 1.2 percent. In Europe, there was a very slight increase in the number of Catholics, the Vatican said.

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23018

 

[humble_in_doubt]

First I’ll note the obvious … according to the article you cite Catholicism will no longer be a religion of Europeans in the near future. Indeed if current trends hold up Europe will be a largely secular continent in a few short decades (at least western Europe).

Moreover, there are various estimates of where Christianity will be in the coming decades (see link here). Most estimates have the numbers pretty flat, some have them shrinking (particularly when considering the losses in Europe), with Islam growing faster. In addition you also have to consider the waning influence of Christianity in the nations who control most of the worlds wealth. Indeed it’s notable that the most educated parts of the world are rejecting Christianity in mass – while virtually all of its growth is occurring in the least educated parts of the world.

I’ll resist the temptation to draw conclusions

 

[josie_L]

Josie:

First, I don’t buy the fact that Hitler was all that much influenced by Sanger. Although she was a proponent of “negative eugenics” (particularly with regard to blacks), here’s a comment she made regarding the Nazi regime:

“All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria…”

Moreover, Sanger rejected any kind of eugenics that took the power away from those giving birth.

For the record I’m no fan of Sanger. You’re right when you say we essentially have designer babies now. However, there’s no reason to believe there will be any racial bias in this modern form of eugenics. Indeed it’s likely black couples will opt for a black child, Latino couples a Latino child, a Polish couple a Polish child, etc. It’s just that parents, if given the choice, will likely opt for a tall, fit, intelligent, slim child with no negative genetic predispositions as opposed to a short, fat, ugly child who will likely develop a serious illness during their lives (seems like common sense to me). So IMO master race is not a fair term since this technology will not be exclusively applied to a single race or ethnicity. Don’t get me wrong – I also see potential dangers with this technology (although I think they can be mitigated & the potential benefit probably outweighs the risk).

Francis, did you think like this prior to your conversion to atheism (at times you think like a machine rather than a human, where’s your heart)? Anyways, here are some quotes from Margaret Sanger:

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ 'spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

---

Margaret Sanger appointed Lothrop Stoddard as a board member of the Birth Control League (the forerunner of Planned Parenthood). What did Stoddard think about Nazi eugenics? Author Stefan Kuhl writes (5):

When the Nazis came to power, argued Stoddard, they started to increase “both the size and the quality of the population.” They coupled initiatives designed to encourage “sound” citizens to reproduce with a “drastic curb of the defective elements.” (7) Stoddard personally witnessed how the Nazis were “weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.”

Lothrop Stoddard and the "Jews Problem"

It is no secret that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis favored Jews be more subject to induced abortion and sterilization than other groups. Stefan Kuhl writes (pp. 61-62):

He [Lothrop Stoddard] even met personally with Adolf Hitler. William L. Shirer, an American colleague who had been in Germany since 1934, complained that the Reich minister for propaganda [Joseph Goebbels] gave special preference to Stoddard because his writings on racial subject were “featured in Nazi school textbooks.”(8)
Kuhl continues:

Stoddard claimed in 1940 that the “Jew problem” is “already settled in principle and soon to be settled in fact by the physical elimination of the Jews themselves from the Third Reich.”

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, made Lothrop Stoddard a board member of the forerunner to PP (the Birth Control League). Why was the Birth Control League reconstituted as Planned Parenthood? The ‘Nazi smell’ of BCL was so bad, that some ‘cosmetics’ were required.

High Praise from Adolf Hitler

Margaret Sanger was a prominent proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. Stefan Kuhl writes:

In 1934 one of Hitler’s staff members wrote to Leon Whitney of the American Eugenics Society and asked in the name of the Fuhrer for a copy of Whitney’s recently published book, The Case for Sterilization. Whitney complied immediately, and shortly thereafter received a personal letter of thanks from Adolf Hitler. In his unpublished autobiography, Whitney reported a conversation he had with Madison Grant about the letter from the Fuhrer. Because he thought Grant might be interested in Hitler’s letter he showed it to him during their next meeting. Grant only smiled, reached for a folder on his desk, and gave Whitney a letter from Hitler to read. In this, Hitler thanked Grant for writing The Passing of the Great Race and said that “the book was his Bible.” Whitney concluded that, following Hitler’s actions, one could believe it. (unpublished autobiography of Leon F. Whitney, written in 1971, Whitney Papers, APS, 204-5) (6)

spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

---

Personally I can’t stand the B*TCH and what she did to thousands of people through forced sterilizations. You should read the rest of the article from “Spectacle”.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m well aware that Sanger was a racist … and as I said I’m no fan of hers. The problem is your argument goes something like this (I’m speaking figuratively).

Hitler liked drinking coffee, Hitler was an evil person, therefore drinking coffee is evil.

Can you see how absurd that logic is? Anyway I gotta hit the sack.

 

[josie_L]

First I’ll note the obvious … according to the article you cite Catholicism will no longer be a religion of Europeans in the near future. Indeed if current trends hold up Europe will be a largely secular continent in a few short decades (at least western Europe).

Moreover, there are various estimates of where Christianity will be in the coming decades (see link here). Most estimates have the numbers pretty flat, some have them shrinking (particularly when considering the losses in Europe), with Islam growing faster. In addition you also have to consider the waning influence of Christianity in the nations who control most of the worlds wealth. Indeed it’s notable that the most educated parts of the world are rejecting Christianity in mass – while virtually all of its growth is occurring in the least educated parts of the world.

I’ll resist the temptation to draw conclusions

I swear Francis sometimes I wish . . . . . . . . . Your arrogance in precluding that Europe will be largely secular ( which does not preclude atheism) may have some validity but we are as yet unsure of many things one of which is the horrible birth rate plaguing most of Europe. And what will become of Europe without a people to reside in it, I know, it will seek immigration, but from where, I know, from the third world countries where Christianity is growing. It’s the circle of life, Francis.

 

[josie_L]

I’m well aware that Sanger was a racist … and as I said I’m no fan of hers. The problem is your argument goes something like this (I’m speaking figuratively).

Hitler liked drinking coffee, Hitler was an evil person, therefore drinking coffee is evil.

Can you see how absurd that logic is? Anyway I gotta hit the sack.

I think you should hit something else. And the article states quite clearly that her organization (through Stoddard but probably many others as they probably all shared the same opinions) was linked to the Nazis.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I think you should hit something else. And the article states quite clearly that her organization (through Stoddard but probably many others as they probably all shared the same opinions) was linked to the Nazis.

none of this matters. You’re beginning with the premise that just because modern developments like invitro fertilization (and other potential future technologies) look similar to eugenics; and Sanger was an advocate of Eugenics, these modern developments are bad simply because Sanger was bad.

This is logically the same as saying – Hitler drank coffee (or advocated the use of caffeine), Hitler was bad, therefore coffee is bad.

It wouldn’t matter if Sanger was sleeping with Hitler, or even if she herself orchestrated the Third Reich. Mussolini invented the concept of social security; does anyone argue social security is bad just because Mussolini was bad? All I’m saying is this is a classic red herring.

Nothing you can say about Sanger is truly relevant with regard to the abortion or eugenics debate, since there’s plenty of bad people with good ideas in this world, and inversely plenty of great people with terrible ideas. We don’t judge an idea according to the character of its author do we? We judge ideas independently, according to their merit. There’s plenty of technologies that the Nazi’s invented which we adopted (i.e. rocket technology).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I swear Francis sometimes I wish . . . . . . . . . Your arrogance in precluding that Europe will be largely secular ( which does not preclude atheism) may have some validity but we are as yet unsure of many things one of which is the horrible birth rate plaguing most of Europe. And what will become of Europe without a people to reside in it, I know, it will seek immigration, but from where, I know, from the third world countries where Christianity is growing. It’s the circle of life, Francis.

don’t worry … the European will always survive

While the third world adopts theism, we’ll begin producing new and improved Europeans and Americans (as well as our other wealthy counterparts who I don’t see ever becoming overly religious, like the Japanese). Low birth rates are only a temporary blip on the screen. Pretty soon it won’t matter how old a woman is, we’ll have artificial wombs (heck 60 year old women will be able to have kids). Moreover, who knows how much we’ll be able to extend life in the coming decades (we might be around for a while).

New western children will be genetically improved. Serious birth defects and other preventable handicaps will eventually become a thing of the past. We’ll be taller, stronger, smarter, healthier, etc. (we’ll be bionic ).

In addition imagine how much other technologies like genetic treatments for diseases, nanotechnology, etc. will change the medical landscape (for those of us who aren’t genetically improved). I’ve even heard scientists working on stuff like electronic chips that can be implanted, which literally have an encyclopedia on it; and our brain could access the information as it needs it (sort of wacky I admit … but boy that would be cool). Whether or not these potential technologies scare some people, if they’re viable they will eventually be produced.

 

[josie_L]

none of this matters. You’re beginning with the premise that just because modern developments like invitro fertilization (and other potential future technologies) look similar to eugenics; and Sanger was an advocate of Eugenics, these modern developments are bad simply because Sanger was bad.

This is logically the same as saying – Hitler drank coffee (or advocated the use of caffeine), Hitler was bad, therefore coffee is bad.

It wouldn’t matter if Sanger was sleeping with Hitler, or even if she herself orchestrated the Third Reich. Mussolini invented the concept of social security; does anyone argue social security is bad just because Mussolini was bad? All I’m saying is this is a classic red herring.

Nothing you can say about Sanger is truly relevant with regard to the abortion or eugenics debate, since there’s plenty of bad people with good ideas in this world, and inversely plenty of great people with terrible ideas. We don’t judge an idea according to the character of its author do we? We judge ideas independently, according to their merit. There’s plenty of technologies that the Nazi’s invented which we adopted (i.e. rocket technology).

I’m attacking the eugenics movement as much as I’m attacking the proponents of that movement because it demonstrates the evils inherent within that movement. Forced sterilizations, racism, race betterment, genocide . . . . are not what I would consider positives (although Sanger and Hitler wholeheartedly disagreed). So what’s to stop us from doing the same thing all over again? Already we speak of people trying to design babies to fit some sort of superficial template that will render humanity in my opinion into a product as opposed to a human being with unique qualities (which is how Hitler viewed humans). I’m obviously all for getting rid of major defects, diseases and what not, but this would be going beyond the necessary (and you’ve already professed your desire for a perfect race a la Gattaca). And quite frankly, I don’t have that much faith in science (those within the community) because they have shown time and time again their disregard for ethical standards and the moral implications involved. Creating artificial wombs and placing embryos within them will foster a detachment between mother and child the likes of which a person with a modicum of common sense can see. I’m sorry but this is more about scientists playing God than it is about creating beneficial advancements. Life will/is becoming a commodity it’s as simple as that.

Please read this:

“But how far can you go, removing ‘defects’ until the question of whether something is a defect is so blurred as to be unanswerable? For that matter, at what point do we cease to become individuals and begin to become automatons? The latter question is perhaps easily answered by dispelling the all too common myth of genetic determinism, which assumes that having certain genes means you will behave and think in a certain way. What we know from the science of genetics at this point suggests that genes are most definitely not the sole factor in behavior and thought. The fact that countless twins become vastly different people despite their identical DNA is disproof enough of genetic determinism. So even if we did end up with a society of ‘template humans’ (an unlikely chance, to be sure, and there are certainly other arguments against it), identity of genetics does not equal identity of personality or personhood. Nonetheless, there is something unsettling about the idea of removing a vast portion of individual genetic differences (even if we are quickly willing to give up deadly birth defects or diseases like Alzheimer’s). Scientifically speaking, minimizing genetic diversity might lead to evolutionary problems in the future, such as the inability to select for beneficial traits when the environment changes. We may have already cut down the normal sort of natural selection that acts on wild animals by allowing the slow, the old and the weak to stay alive when they would have died in the wild, but natural selection is still certainly active today in a different form: there are still hereditary genetic traits which are selected for on other terms (like sexual selection for attractive bodies). But in a world with very little genetic diversity, natural selection might indeed be stopped altogether, and thus only artificial evolution (through technology) would be able to allow us humans to cope with a changing environment.”

strange-loops.com/scieugenics.html

I disagree to some extent with this quote in that it suggests that even if the idea of a template human were to arise personality will provide the distinguishing feature that will give us our sense of uniqueness. But it begs the question as to what kind of cultural environment would induce people to relegate humans to a customized product? Would this cultural environment be conducive to (personal) diversity? I don’t think so.

 

[josie_L]

don’t worry … the European will always survive

I’m not worried about the survival of the European so much as their spiritual well-being.

While the third world adopts theism, we’ll begin producing new and improved Europeans and Americans (as well as our other wealthy counterparts who I don’t see ever becoming overly religious, like the Japanese). Low birth rates are only a temporary blip on the screen. Pretty soon it won’t matter how old a woman is, we’ll have artificial wombs (heck 60 year old women will be able to have kids). Moreover, who knows how much we’ll be able to extend life in the coming decades (we might be around for a while).

What is an artificial womb going to do to help the situation when perfectly able human beings are not reproducing? You assume there will be a demand for artificial wombs? And that older women will somehow have a desire to regain motherhood? Fat chance. For artificial wombs to become popular Europeans will have to be convinced to have babies (more than 2). Unless you’re thinking of forcing such a method on the population.

New western children will be genetically improved. Serious birth defects and other preventable handicaps will eventually become a thing of the past. We’ll be taller, stronger, smarter, healthier, etc. (we’ll be bionic ).

So we’ll be genetically improved but we’ll still be fewer in number. And the point of my argument was this: because of low birth rates Europe will need immigrants to fill in the gaps as such these immigrants will reintroduce theism (hopefully Christianity as it is growing in leaps and bounds in many developing countries). Europe will be Christian again.

In addition imagine how much other technologies like genetic treatments for diseases, nanotechnology, etc. will change the medical landscape (for those of us who aren’t genetically improved). I’ve even heard scientists working on stuff like electronic chips that can be implanted, which literally have an encyclopedia on it; and our brain could access the information as it needs it (sort of wacky I admit … but boy that would be cool). Whether or not these potential technologies scare some people, if they’re viable they will eventually be produced.

Sort of wacky, more like sort of crazy, how can we do this to human beings? We’re not robots. And again, do we need a chip that contains tons of knowledge implanted into our brains, when we have simpler methods for learning at hand? And what if this new chip were to be used for the purposes of manipulation like programming people to think the same? Francis, this is nuts. And furthermore, this is highly dangerous terrain we are threading on.

P.S. Would you classify yourself as handsome? Please answer the question as I’m trying to make a point by asking it?

 

[happilycatholic]

Are you suggesting that an unborn child yawns before it can breathe, or walks around and then forgets how for several months after birth?

Yes. Yawning doesn’t require breath. Some people take a breath and some don’t. Most do not breath until the exhale at the end of the yawn because you’ve been holding your breath. Yawning is about stretching. If you’ll notice, a dog does not appear to breath at all, before or after yawning. They usually yawn after a nap or lying down for a while.

I haven’t seen the references to walking, but I seriously doubt they are speaking of taking actual strides. They probably mean the child is moving its legs in a way that mimics walking. And they certainly DO exercise. Ask any pregnant woman.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m not worried about the survival of the European so much as their spiritual well-being.

I’m not worried about them either

What is an artificial womb going to do to help the situation when perfectly able human beings are not reproducing? You assume there will be a demand for artificial wombs? And that older women will somehow have a desire to regain motherhood? Fat chance. For artificial wombs to become popular Europeans will have to be convinced to have babies (more than 2). Unless you’re thinking of forcing such a method on the population.

there will be plenty of demand for it … believe me.

So we’ll be genetically improved but we’ll still be fewer in number. And the point of my argument was this: because of low birth rates Europe will need immigrants to fill in the gaps as such these immigrants will reintroduce theism (hopefully Christianity as it is growing in leaps and bounds in many developing countries). Europe will be Christian again.

you’ll sooner see pink elephants flying over Paris

Sort of wacky, more like sort of crazy, how can we do this to human beings? We’re not robots. And again, do we need a chip that contains tons of knowledge implanted into our brains, when we have simpler methods for learning at hand? And what if this new chip were to be used for the purposes of manipulation like programming people to think the same? Francis, this is nuts. And furthermore, this is highly dangerous terrain we are threading on.

you would have been one of those people arguing against aspirin and vitamin C

 

[josie_L]

I’m not worried about them either

But I am worried about the spiritual well being of Europe. I don’t want (humanistic) secularism to win.

there will be plenty of demand for it … believe me.

How is that an objective response to my questions? What will push (no pun intended ) the Europeans to pro-create?

you’ll sooner see pink elephants flying over Paris

No, the Christians in Africa and Asia are having babies at a rate greater than Europe, and so they will be the new wave of immigrants to fill in the population gaps. There is nothing crazy about that. You choose to deny this because it doesn’t fit into your neat secular plan for Europe (and the rest of the world). Secularists are a dying breed because they are the ones adhering to contraceptives, having less than two babies, promoting abortion. Well, you got what you wanted now reap what you’ve sown.

you would have been one of those people arguing against aspirin and vitamin C

No, I wouldn’t since I like science very much, but it needs to work within ethical boundaries just like any other field. Why are you determined to set me against science when all I’m arguing for is that scientists be more conscientious?

 

[Lilyflower]

I think you have it backwards. You are the one that claims the existence of god therefore the burden of proof is on you.

For example I say to you, “We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.”

A logical response for you would be, “Prove it.”

Theists are the ones that can claim no authority because they have no proof. Atheists on the other hand have mountains of peer reviewed scientific data that stands as evidence that many of the beliefs espoused by most of the religions of the world are just plane wrong.

My dear and dearest Another Atheist

I CLAIM ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH THAT ALMIGHTY GOD EXISTS!!!

I cannot prove to you that God exists, but I am MORE CERTAIN of His existance than I am of your existance.

You see I have met Him tangibly and physically but I have not met you. So on the balance of probability, the likelihood of your existence is less than that of God’s existence.