Peter Singer Defends His Views on Killing Disabled Babies Via Infanticide

[SeekerJen]

I also read a majority of Stryer’s Biochemistry in my own free time. I do not own a biochemistry textbook, but the online version is extremely satisfactory.

I also highly recommend “Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry”. I think they’re on the 4th edition now, I used the 2nd edition when I was in undergrad. I’m betting the new one has cool CD-ROMs and whatnot. I’ve heard good things about the Stryer book as well, but haven’t had much experience. It seems like biochem profs polarize around one or the other.

I’m glad that you realize that there are still questions that cannot be explained away with science alone. I did not post to talk down to you or to make you prove what you know: you know quite a bit more than many undergrads and that much was evident in earlier posts. My post was to explain the view of science and the minutiae of life from the perspective of a Catholic scientist, and why specifically I feel the way I do.

I hope you continue your research at the college level. It’s a tough road, it generally won’t get you fame or fortune, and if you’re shooting for either you’re on the wrong path. But if you do it for the sheer love of learning the desire to have your questions answered, and (for many of us) the hope that we can make a slight contribution to improving the world, you won’t be disappointed. Just keep an open mind regarding the universe’s origins.

I’ll take a look at the Shapiro paper soon: I only have access to the university’s online journal subscriptions when I’m on campus.

 

[ribozyme]

I heard the biochemistry textbook by Voet and Voet is better than the Stryer textbook. I never read it, but I think the Stryer textbook is not in-depth enough (but it is a good textbook nevertheless.)

I do not know much about the origins of the universe though. Personally, my favorite model is the cyclic model; you should look it up on wikipedia.

However, I am more interested in the origin of life though. Personally, my studies and living my life convinced me that all we are is just molecules… But regarding life as a chemical system…
Robert Shapiro:

The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.

pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/shapiro_on_dbb.html

I’ll agree with Shapiro on this… but all life is is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution. No more, no less. Life is not that special, and my pessmistic views have been expressed in this thread about life itself.

 

[JimG]

I’ll agree with Shapiro on this… but all life is is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution. No more, no less. Life is not that special, and my pessmistic views have been expressed in this thread about life itself.

Some forms of life are capable of sustaining complex internet discussion threads. Perhaps someone will eventually publish a study of the biochemical basis of that phenomenon.

 

[ribozyme]

I do believe that consciousness has a biochemical basis mainly because we are mentally limited by our physical bodies. For example, people with Down syndrome a limited by their brains.

 

[vz71]

I do believe that consciousness has a biochemical basis mainly because we are mentally limited by our physical bodies. For example, people with Down syndrome a limited by their brains.

Is it a limitation in ability to think, or a limitation on the ability to express them.
You really cannot say that they are mentally limited without professing to read minds.
Have you acquired a new talent???

 

[ribozyme]

It’s well accepted that people with Down sydrome are cognatively limited compared to most people. For example, they are not able to live autonomously in most cases.

 

[JimG]

I do believe that consciousness has a biochemical basis mainly because we are mentally limited by our physical bodies. For example, people with Down syndrome a limited by their brains.

It’s quite true that we are dependent on our bodies, which are governed by physics and biochemistry.

On the other hand, if everything we think, speculate, or decide, has only a biochemical basis, then it ought, in theory at least, to be predictable by physical laws. If one had a perfect understanding of the physics and biochemistry of the individuals involved, one should be able to predict the course and even the exact words, of any of these threads.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It’s well accepted that people with Down syndrome are cognitively limited compared to most people. For example, they are not able to live autonomously in most cases.

Well then anyone not living autonomously in your opinion is less of a person. They have not achieved personhood as you said earlier.

IMO knowledge without compassion and faith is not complete.

I corrected your spelling in the quote.

 

[ribozyme]

Well then anyone not living autonomously in your opinion is less of a person. They have not achieved personhood as you said earlier.

IMO knowledge without compassion and faith is not complete.

I corrected your spelling in the quote.

I DIDN’T say anything about their personhood in that quote. Even though one afflicted with Down syndrome cannot live autonomously, they still have subjective awareness, so they can be deemed a person. And since they have personhood, it is wrong to kill them.

 

[vz71]

It’s well accepted that people with Down sydrome are cognatively limited compared to most people. For example, they are not able to live autonomously in most cases.

Popular opinion is not scholarship.

In fact, I have often run into many instances where “well accepted” is wrong.

I would ask you to prove your contention.

 

[ribozyme]

Popular opinion is not scholarship.

In fact, I have often run into many instances where “well accepted” is wrong.

I would ask you to prove your contention.

Hmm… I will not, but ask yourself how many people with Down syndrome are scientists? Also ask yourself, are they capable of being scientists?

To Kathleen…

Why do you think that every time I mention a cognative ailment, I am in some way saying that those people are not considered persons? I already defined personhood according to the Singer definition here…

 

[JimG]

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future.

When my father was in his 80’s, he did not suffer from dementia or Alzheimer’s. Yet, because of a series of small strokes, he was no longer able to “plan and anticipate” his own future. We took him in to live with us and essentially made all life decisions for him.

By Singer’s definition, we could have had him euthanized.

You’d better hope for your own sake that as you grow older, or if you should become incapacitated in an accident, Singer’s definition does not apply.

When personhood is not inherent, but depends on our abilities, none of us is safe.

 

[vz71]

Hmm… I will not, but ask yourself how many people with Down syndrome are scientists? Also ask yourself, are they capable of being scientists?

Will not? Try Cannot.
But in any instance, that is not my real point.

Like so many things I have seen you write, you do not seem to consider all of the ramifications of any viewpoint you adopt as your own.

Just because someone sounds scholarly does not make them a scholar. A given view should not be adopted based on the letters at the end of someone’s name. Every opinion (or ‘fact’ for that matter) needs to be carefully weighed against what we already know to be true.
Viewpoints should never be adopted, they should be formed from scratch. I fear that the former mentioned adoption of view is happening rather then formation from scratch.

 

[SeekerJen]

Hmm… I will not, but ask yourself how many people with Down syndrome are scientists? Also ask yourself, are they capable of being scientists?

Who cares how many of them are scientists? How many people in the general population are scientists? Just being smart doesn’t make you capable of being a scientist. If you really think that then you’re in for a rude awakening. Plenty of people who get good grades, test well, and like science can’t cut it in research. Thus, they could be considered “not capable” of being scientists, even though they certainly possess intelligence. This is true for any profession: I like to sing and enjoy music, but I will never be capable of opera performance. Very few are. Try another argument, maybe one that you’re willing and able to defend.

You know, I actually can’t wait for you to get to college. It will be good for you. 1) It will likely be a humbling experience for you- teach you that scientists are not gods and that you, as a scientist, are no better than anyone else, and 2) it will force you to prove your assertions. If you’re unwilling to prove your statements, you won’t get very far.

 

[estesbob]

Who cares how many of them are scientists? How many people in the general population are scientists? Just being smart doesn’t make you capable of being a scientist. If you really think that then you’re in for a rude awakening. Plenty of people who get good grades, test well, and like science can’t cut it in research. Thus, they are not capable of being scientists, even though they certainly possess intelligence. Try another argument, maybe one that you’re willing and able to defend.

You know, I actually can’t wait for you to get to college. It will be good for you. 1) It will likely be a humbling experience for you- teach you that scientists are not gods and that you, as a scientist, are no better than anyone else, and 2) it will force you to prove your assertions. If you’re unwilling to prove your statements, you won’t get very far.

I have run across ribozyme in other threads and he claims to be an atheist but he actually worhsip the god of science. He measures ones worth by his perception of how “intelligent” they are. He has latched onto every secular humanist author he can find and quotes them with the same fervor the fundamentalist quotes scripture. When he falls he will fall hard.

 

[ribozyme]

I have run across ribozyme in other threads and he claims to be an atheist but he actually worhsip the god of science. He measures ones worth by his perception of how “intelligent” they are. He has latched onto every secular humanist author he can find and quotes them with the same fervor the fundamentalist quotes scripture. When he falls he will fall hard.

Show evidence for this: “He measures ones worth by his perception of how “intelligent” they are.”

All I was trying to say that people with Down syndrome are cognatively limited to support the notion that consciousness has a material basis. I did not say anything about superiority or worth correlating to intelligence.

Well, regarding my assertion with Down syndrome, if we do count IQ tests as an indicator for cognative ability, people with Down syndrome score lower than the average population. I think that should be enough to support that assertion though.

 

[ribozyme]

Who cares how many of them are scientists? How many people in the general population are scientists? Just being smart doesn’t make you capable of being a scientist. If you really think that then you’re in for a rude awakening.

Hmm… I never said that. In order for one to be a scientist, they have to conduct research, of course. It takes a lot more than cognative ability to become a scientist though, but it seems that cognative ability is a prerequisite to be a scientist.

 

[vz71]

Hmm… I never said that. In order for one to be a scientist, they have to conduct research, of course. It takes a lot more than cognative ability to become a scientist though, but it seems that cognative ability is a prerequisite to be a scientist.

Given some of the ‘scientists’ I have met, cognitive ability does not appear to be requisite.

 

[ribozyme]

Well, that slur was directed at me as an ad hominem. Unfortunately, for you I never called myself a scientist, nor do I think of myself as a scientist. Oh well, I was typing too fast to spell “cognitive” correctly, unfortunately for myself I did not use the spellcheck function.

Let’s ignore that Down syndrome remark, ok.

 

[vz71]

Well, that slur was directed at me as an ad hominem.

Unfortunately, for you I never called myself a scientist, nor do I think of myself as a scientist.

No one said you did.
My comment was based on your last post, “…but it seems that cognative ability is a prerequisite to be a scientist.”

Oh well, I was typing too fast to spell “cognitive” correctly, unfortunately for myself I did not use the spellcheck function.

Let’s ignore that Down syndrome remark, ok.