A
_A
Guest
Not my post.
- Status
C
c659smith
Guest
lawrence PA and Minnie,
Then do you agree that if the fetus can be removed through not causing undue pain with saline, cutting the baby into a million pieces, or severing the spine and crushing the babies head.
Removed by C-Section saving the babie’s life as viabliity today starts at 4 months.
That the mother in having this has decided not to have the baby then she should have no rights to the baby?
Now by this a womans rights in regards to it being her body is maintained and the HUMAN LIFE is not murdered.
Heart beat, brain waves, sensory percection feels pain and discomfort. which a 4 month old baby has in the womb, hardly a definition by science in any term.
Awaiting yout reply
Then do you agree that if the fetus can be removed through not causing undue pain with saline, cutting the baby into a million pieces, or severing the spine and crushing the babies head.
Removed by C-Section saving the babie’s life as viabliity today starts at 4 months.
That the mother in having this has decided not to have the baby then she should have no rights to the baby?
Now by this a womans rights in regards to it being her body is maintained and the HUMAN LIFE is not murdered.
Heart beat, brain waves, sensory percection feels pain and discomfort. which a 4 month old baby has in the womb, hardly a definition by science in any term.
Awaiting yout reply
O
ontologysue
Guest
An embryo is not a “potential person,” an embryo is a human person with potential.I have to admit I’m getting a little heated, but yes:
The essential difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is not “who’s evil and who’s saintly in the debate”. The “issue” is over what constitutes personhood, and sadly, if you take out the Catholic-God-clause, there is no real reason why a blob of cells with no awareness of its existence whatsoever is any different than the blob of cells in a tumor.
Furthermore, although there is one thing which makes an embryo/early fetus better than a tumor – its potential to be a human person – this point defeats itself when you realize that so do the millions of sperm right now swimming around in (you know). Also, should that “potential human person” become a great unnecessary weight on the mother’s life, *then it’s in the mother’s best interests to abort the “potential human person” and wait until a more suitable time to have a child. * As for the blob of cells: what does *it *care?
So yes, malignant *OR *benign.
A sperm has the potentiality to unite with an egg. By itself, it is not a person. Once united with an egg, human life has begun and unless violently interruted, will mature developmentally just like the rest of us.
I have 3 physicians in my immediate family, all three say with today’s medicine, there is never a reason to abort the fetus to save the life of the mother. It’s an irrelavent argument. Most physicians are now of the opinion that abortion is just bad medicine. Hence, the large numbers of doctors who have quit doing them. Abortion centers are diminishing, not fast enough but the trend is on the pro life side.
Any society that kills its own children is doomed.
PS: equating a developing human being with a tumor is nonsense!
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Think about what you are saying, my good A: On one hand, you see my point that it is absurd that applications of binary code could be created without the aid of some intelligent design, yet, on the other hand, you claim there are no signs of intelligent design in applications of genetic code.Quote:Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gifSorry for jumping between two concepts, but i was asking about binary code, not genetic code. I was asking if a Windows operating system can possibly be created without the aid of any intelligent human being. Are you claiming that such a complex series of zeros and ones can be created in the exact order required for the operating system to function? *I mean, lets say you and i were to write a computer program together to randomly generate a random number of zeros and ones. After this random generation occurred, if we were to feed the resulting series of zeros and ones into a computer processor, would we get anything that resembled a Windows Vista Ultimate desktop and a fully-functional operating system? I don’t see how it would be possible to get anything but a garbled and meaningless mess. As programmers at my work tell me, “Garbage in = garbage out.”*Here are the system requirements for Windows Vista Ultimate, according to Microsoft:
*Notice the minimum hard drive space required for the operating system files is 15 gigabytes. You or i can go to this Web site to calculate exactly how many ones and zeros this is:**beesky.com/newsite/bit_byte.htm*There are eight bits in one byte and 16,106,127,360 bytes in 15 gigabytes, so the number of bits would be 128,849,018,880. That is, there are more than one hundred billion ones and zeros in a new installation of Windows Vista Ultimate. The odds that our computer might randomly generate merely the correct number of bits is at best:
- 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
- 1 GB of system memory
- 40 GB hard drive* with at least 15 GB of available space …
microsoft.com/windows/pro…uirements.mspx
1 in 128,849,018,880Now, what are the odds that all of these ones and zeros would be arranged in the exact ordernecessary to create a working Windows Vista Ultimate operating system? There are billions and billions of numbers here, which would mean an astronomically large number of possible arrangements of ones and zeros. Even if we were to start running our computer program at the moment of the Big Bang and kept it running to this day, there would not be enough time to get the binary code for the operating system right.I do, but I don’t think that *only *intelligent beings could create such a complex code. A far more complex code is used in biology (hence the DNA reference), and there was no signs of intelligence creating that.
To me, the obvious conclusion is this: To believe it is possible for random chance over time to create the binary code for a Windows operating system is absurd in the extreme.
Do you see my point?
Now, you and i know that genetic code is far more complex than the comparatively simpler binary code. If it is absurd to think that the binary code of a Windows operating system was created without the aid of an intelligent programmer, why is it reasonable to think that the genetic code of the ancestors of living creatures was created without the aid of an intelligent programmer?
If one notion is absurd, you must conclude that the other notion is absurd, as well. See what i mean?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Returning to the logical argument we are considering, thoughtful A, i’d suggest we amend it thus:
Premises:1a) Machines, such as computer processors, have two settings within their circuits, which are electrical current on, and electrical current off 2a) Machines, such computer processors, use binary code to receive instructions from computer programs3a) Hence, the binary numbering system itself might be the product of natural circumstances rather than the creating of intelligent beings 4a) However, examples of binary code, such as the programs written that comprise a Windows operating system are too complex to be the result of random chance plus time5a) We have many examples of complex binary code created by computer programmers and computer science engineers6a) There is not even one example of complex binary code created by random chance plus time7a) Genetic code, being a double-binary or “quadary” code, is far more complex than binary codeConclusions: 100a) While the binary numbering system might be explained by natural circumstances, examples of binary code must be the creation of the intelligent human beings who wrote them101a) It is absurd to think that an application of binary code (such as a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system) might be the result of random chance plus time102a) Since genetic code is far more complex than binary code, and since it is absurd to think that an application of binary code might be the result of random chance plus time, it must likewise be absurd to think that applications of genetic code might be the result of random chance plus time103a) It is reasonable to conclude that applications of genetic code, in their original forms (prior to genetic mutations), were the product of some intelligent being who designed (or “programmed”) themI believe you are a rational and reasonable and logical thinker, A. If you are going to deny the truth of the conclusion (103a), you will either have to prove either that:
(A) one of the premises (1a) - (7a) are falseor(B) the premises (1a) - (7a) do not support conclusion (103a)Please understand that i’m putting the logical argument in this form of premises and conclusions to make it easier for us both to reason together. Tell me please, A, What is your response?
Premises:1a) Machines, such as computer processors, have two settings within their circuits, which are electrical current on, and electrical current off 2a) Machines, such computer processors, use binary code to receive instructions from computer programs3a) Hence, the binary numbering system itself might be the product of natural circumstances rather than the creating of intelligent beings 4a) However, examples of binary code, such as the programs written that comprise a Windows operating system are too complex to be the result of random chance plus time5a) We have many examples of complex binary code created by computer programmers and computer science engineers6a) There is not even one example of complex binary code created by random chance plus time7a) Genetic code, being a double-binary or “quadary” code, is far more complex than binary codeConclusions: 100a) While the binary numbering system might be explained by natural circumstances, examples of binary code must be the creation of the intelligent human beings who wrote them101a) It is absurd to think that an application of binary code (such as a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system) might be the result of random chance plus time102a) Since genetic code is far more complex than binary code, and since it is absurd to think that an application of binary code might be the result of random chance plus time, it must likewise be absurd to think that applications of genetic code might be the result of random chance plus time103a) It is reasonable to conclude that applications of genetic code, in their original forms (prior to genetic mutations), were the product of some intelligent being who designed (or “programmed”) themI believe you are a rational and reasonable and logical thinker, A. If you are going to deny the truth of the conclusion (103a), you will either have to prove either that:
(A) one of the premises (1a) - (7a) are falseor(B) the premises (1a) - (7a) do not support conclusion (103a)Please understand that i’m putting the logical argument in this form of premises and conclusions to make it easier for us both to reason together. Tell me please, A, What is your response?
M
Minnie31
Guest
I agreed that a fetus is part of a person like a tumor because it is not independent of the mother until it exists outside of her body. What makes me different from the fetus is that I am not physically dependent on anyone for development.
M
Mirdath
Guest
S4J, I’d actually suggest going with the example of Morse code over machine language; while both depend on an off/on sequence, lights are found in nature while transistors and integrated circuits so far are not. And since, as far as I know, neither you nor A are serious techies, it might be easier on the both of you
And in the example of Morse code, it’s perfectly reasonable to imagine that a firefly might spell out a letter or word purely by chance without giving it eons to do so. There isn’t any example of naturally produced machine code because, as far as I know, nobody’s bothered to reduce everything to binary and see what happens when it runs. Who’s to say that if you record sunspot activity as ones and zeroes and run it you won’t get a repository of the source code to all known Microsoft products? (Although that could be construed as proof of Satan’s existence, and therefore God’s…
)
M
Minnie31
Guest
I find your post confusing. What are you asking here
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Good point, Midrath!S4J, I’d actually suggest going with the example of Morse code over machine language; while both depend on an off/on sequence, lights are found in nature while transistors and integrated circuits so far are not. And since, as far as I know, neither you nor A are serious techies, it might be easier on the both of you
In fact, there are more than 50 years of scientific study showing that binary code is not naturally produced by the universe. Scientists have been listening to radio waves, and observing other waves, for signs of some intelligent communication coming from the universe to earth, and have found none.
The premise these scientists have is a valid one: If there is something resembling Morse Code (or any other code) it must be the product of some intelligence. The fact that they have found no evidence of such a code being produced by natural occurrences is good evidence that only intelligent beings are able to produce code, whether it be binary, Morse, or genetic code.
A
_A
Guest
It does not follow, S4J. The binary code is something which we have evidence demonstrating that it was developed by a particular group of humans.
Because you do not accept ‘natural selection’ as a way of making complex things out of simple ones, I don’t know how else to explain it.
I don’t see god in there, though, and I think that is really the point. Why would your god hide his existence to all but the biological scientist who understands all that?
A
_A
Guest
Thank you for the compliment, but I would rather be observed to be rational than to have it believed
I will comment on your last error first, since it seems to be critical.
It is not true OR false, simply incomplete.
Here is where your incomplete understanding of the theory of evolution is causing you problems. I think I can help.
It is not just random chance plus time. It is random minor changes, time, and the important selection pressure.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Are you saying that conclusion (103a) does not follow from the premises? If so, please explain why not.
What i think you are you saying is that the earliest life forms, such as bacterial, had a genetic code that was simple enough for random chance plus time to create them. Is this correct?
C
c659smith
Guest
Minnie,
Minnie the baby in the womb is not part Human but is Human.
There is not a scientist worth his 2 cents that would take your stance on this not being Human Life.
You do not make sense you are not physically attached to anyone for development ?
Well then you must have fed yourself at the time of birth;
You must have known how to speak and write.
What I was asking you is that the woman does not want the baby inside her and you are for the mothers rite to terminate that life.
My question is then is it ok if the baby can be removed from the mother by (C-Section)
The baby then being saved by Modern Medical means.
Would this be a more humane way of dealing with the baby in the womb and the woman.s right as she did not want the baby in her body.
And as such would you agree that this woman does not have any ties to this baby what so ever.
I also understand that you disagree with many criminal cases wherby the mother was killed and / or baby killed in her womb by anothers actions—murder, vehicular homicide, battery, etc…
No-one should not be charged with murder of what you call a tumor or should I say part Human.
How does one committ half a murder???
Minnie the baby in the womb is not part Human but is Human.
There is not a scientist worth his 2 cents that would take your stance on this not being Human Life.
You do not make sense you are not physically attached to anyone for development ?
Well then you must have fed yourself at the time of birth;
You must have known how to speak and write.
What I was asking you is that the woman does not want the baby inside her and you are for the mothers rite to terminate that life.
My question is then is it ok if the baby can be removed from the mother by (C-Section)
The baby then being saved by Modern Medical means.
Would this be a more humane way of dealing with the baby in the womb and the woman.s right as she did not want the baby in her body.
And as such would you agree that this woman does not have any ties to this baby what so ever.
I also understand that you disagree with many criminal cases wherby the mother was killed and / or baby killed in her womb by anothers actions—murder, vehicular homicide, battery, etc…
No-one should not be charged with murder of what you call a tumor or should I say part Human.
How does one committ half a murder???
A
_A
Guest
I’ll wait until you have caught up and read about the ‘selection pressures’ which you have missed here.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I have always looked at abortion as a murder, largely because one is murdering another’s soul. No one has the ‘right’ to do that, and not allow an embryo to grow into a human begin. A fetus has a heartbeat in about 18 days since conception…a heartbeat!! How could we think that it’s not a human being, a baby life, inside of the mother’s womb if it already has a heart beat?
When in complete and utter doubt, err on the side of life.
When in complete and utter doubt, err on the side of life.
M
Mirdath
Guest
R before D, but don’t sweat it – half the people here make that mistake
A code is only as good as its interpreter. We know what to do with Morse and with machine language, because we came up with both – but if somebody else uses a different format for information transfer, our knowledge of Morse and machine code is useless. Take Kryptos: at a glance, it looks entirely random. White noise. People who’ve devoted their lives to studying codes have managed to decrypt the first three sections after several years – and they’re dealing with encrypted English, not encrypted Martian.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I’ve got to go, A, but i’ll check back later to read your response.
Thanks for the education!
Thanks for the education!
A
_A
Guest
I think I can do it with dice.Please explain what you mean by selection pressure, and i will try to be a quick study.
Say you have 10 dice, and you have a target number of 5,6,4,1,2,3,1,6,4,3; it will be a long time indeed, rolling dice until this random sequence happens to come up.
I think without even calculating the odds (which I am not really qualified to do ) carefully, it is easy to see that if you are able to roll all 10, keep whatever matches your target, then roll the remainder, it would take considerably fewer rolls to achieve your ‘target’.
Selection pressure favored the changes which improved survival, such as a simple eye evolving over a long time into a complex one. Kind of like ‘keeping the dice’ and rolling again.
I am just learning, too. I recommend ‘Growing Up In The Universe’ a series of children’s lectures by Richard Dawkins. That is a good jumping off point, anyway.
M
Minnie31
Guest
In humans, the fetus is the development of a human life that takes place inside a woman’s body. The fetus is a part of the woman until birth, when it is detached from her.
You’re missing the point here. At the time of birth, a new life exists. The fetus is no longer physically attached to, or a part of a host (the mother).
Yes, if that’s what she chooses.
If that’s what the woman wants and she discusses her wishes with the medical professionals and they agree to it, then it is not an issue.
It would be an alternative way. And if the woman did not want ties to the baby I’m sure that could be arranged.
If a woman’s pregnancy is ended by another against her wishes, then in my opinion that person should be subject to some kind of punishment.
This abortion issue has been addressed on the last thread and quite frankly it’s getting old and no longer very interesting. I answered your questions, now it’s my turn to ask you something. How would you describe god?
- Status