NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.Oh, so nobody has been killed in the name of science? I guess you've never heard of Josef Mengela, then.

Quit flaming.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.Oh, so nobody has been killed in the name of science? I guess you've never heard of Josef Mengela, then.

Quit flaming.

Actually, its trolling, but I agree with your sentiment

people have been killed in the name of pretty much everything. though i agree that there is just as much reason to believe in Winnie the Pooh as there is to believe in any of the Gods suggested by the religious. don't try to tell them that, though :).

people have been killed in the name of pretty much everything. though i agree that there is just as much reason to believe in Winnie the Pooh as there is to believe in any of the Gods suggested by the religious. don't try to tell them that, though :).I don't want to get into this right now. I'm Christian, you're not. We aren't going to change each others opinions, plain and simple.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.

people have been killed in the name of pretty much everything. though i agree that there is just as much reason to believe in Winnie the Pooh as there is to believe in any of the Gods suggested by the religious. don't try to tell them that, though :).I don't want to get into this right now. I'm Christian, you're not. We aren't going to change each others opinions, plain and simple.

so why did you bring it up? i don't think i was talking to you, yet you seem to be hankering to discuss what you claim to not want to discuss. take a pill, i don't care what imaginary friends you have...enjoy yourself and get on with your life.

many scientists believe in god, does that mean i would be a reasonable person if i agreed with them?

many scientists believe in god, does that mean i would be a reasonable person if i agreed with them?
you shouldn't believe in anything just because someone else does. if you believe their reasoning and their evidence is sufficient then you should decide to believe on those merits, not simply because another person says so. that's what science is about...presenting the evidence along with the opinions, so other people can reach conclusions without just having to take your word for it.

people have been killed in the name of pretty much everything. though i agree that there is just as much reason to believe in Winnie the Pooh as there is to believe in any of the Gods suggested by the religious. don't try to tell them that, though :).I don't want to get into this right now. I'm Christian, you're not. We aren't going to change each others opinions, plain and simple.

so why did you bring it up? i don't think i was talking to you, yet you seem to be hankering to discuss what you claim to not want to discuss. take a pill, i don't care what imaginary friends you have...enjoy yourself and get on with your life.All I did in this topic is point out a major hole in Carturn's arguement. Are you going to let me leave, or what?

people have been killed in the name of pretty much everything. though i agree that there is just as much reason to believe in Winnie the Pooh as there is to believe in any of the Gods suggested by the religious. don't try to tell them that, though :).I don't want to get into this right now. I'm Christian, you're not. We aren't going to change each others opinions, plain and simple.

so why did you bring it up? i don't think i was talking to you, yet you seem to be hankering to discuss what you claim to not want to discuss. take a pill, i don't care what imaginary friends you have...enjoy yourself and get on with your life.All I did in this topic is point out a major hole in Carturn's arguement. Are you going to let me leave, or what?

dude, YOU STARTED TALKING TO ME. why are you acting like i threw down, when you were the one who initiated the conversation?! leave whenever you want, i was posting on the thread and minding my own business when you started off on your little rant.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.


Science did not invent abortion - or are you seriously claiming that no abortions took place before science came into being (we'll call it circa 300BC and credit Aristotle with inventing science, for the sake of argument)?

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.Can you show that they aren't human beings? Where's scientific proof for THAT? Or if it's just your personal opinion, this boils down to your word versus mine.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.Can you show that they aren't human beings? Where's scientific proof for THAT? Or if it's just your personal opinion, this boils down to your word versus mine.

it is impossible to prove a negative. there is no scientific basis for granting a pre-viable fetus human status, any more than there is grounds for saying that an accorn is an oak tree. if you wish to claim that something is the case then it is for you to provide evidence; that's called Debate 101.

it is impossible to prove a negative. ... if you wish to claim that something is the case then it is for you to provide evidence; that's called Debate 101.

Does this not rather run contrary to the scientific method of falsification?

wow guys...you all need to chill down just a little bit...if you think about it everyone has their own opinions... and you can't get mad cuz someone expressed their idea's...!!! so you all jus tneed to simmer down

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.Can you show that they aren't human beings? Where's scientific proof for THAT? Or if it's just your personal opinion, this boils down to your word versus mine.

it is impossible to prove a negative. there is no scientific basis for granting a pre-viable fetus human status, any more than there is grounds for saying that an accorn is an oak tree. if you wish to claim that something is the case then it is for you to provide evidence; that's called Debate 101.

You could demonstrate that a fetus is something that excludes the possibility of it being human. That would solve the quandary.

science is about proposing a theory that can be later disproven by another theory, it is never regarded as final. I should know this, i'm an honours science student at unversity of waterloo. but it does not give proof to the non-existance of god. with later study and experimentation, science itself may just offer proof in the existance of higher power. many people have an arrogant belief that humans are the all and most powerful species in the universe, or they fear to believe that they could not be in control of their own lives, but we cannnot completely disregard the possibility of a higher power just because there is no proof in its existance. there is also no proof in its non-existance. people believe in string theory or causal theory, both opposing each other as a current basis for the structure of our universe, there is no proof, they are theories which may have evidence to support their existance or evidence to disprove it. there are no supporting theories that can disprove the existance of god, any philisophical arguments can be used in both ways, to prove or disprove. one look at the comparison of god to us as being like the comparison of us to a culture of bacteria, the bacteria live without any knowledge of our existance, they may thrive within us, either devouring us or assisting us in a symbiotic relationship.

it is impossible to prove a negative. ... if you wish to claim that something is the case then it is for you to provide evidence; that's called Debate 101.

Does this not rather run contrary to the scientific method of falsification?

no. for a theory to be scientifically worthwhile it must present testable hypotheses...it must show why it is correct, why the facts existing to date are consistent with its conclusions, and it must provide ways that it could be disproven through study. if a hypothesis is untestable, like the "fetuses are people because i think so" or "fetuses are people because God says so" positions, then it is not valid in the scientific world. also, a scientist would NEVER expect anyone to embrace their theory without providing evidence, since that would be downright nutty. you don't pose a theory and just expect people to buy it, you have to really dig away at testing it yourself and build up considerable supports. you wouldn't just say, "hey, you haven't proven me wrong so let's all just assume i'm right!"

I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person. Ummm, actually, many of the most famous names in science are very religious. Dude, many of the greatest discoveries were done in the name of religion. :roll: Get your facts straight.

science is about proposing a theory that can be later disproven by another theory, it is never regarded as final. I should know this, i'm an honours science student at unversity of waterloo. but it does not give proof to the non-existance of god. with later study and experimentation, science itself may just offer proof in the existance of higher power. many people have an arrogant belief that humans are the all and most powerful species in the universe, or they fear to believe that they could not be in control of their own lives, but we cannnot completely disregard the possibility of a higher power just because there is no proof in its existance. there is also no proof in its non-existance. people believe in string theory or causal theory, both opposing each other as a current basis for the structure of our universe, there is no proof, they are theories which may have evidence to support their existance or evidence to disprove it. there are no supporting theories that can disprove the existance of god, any philisophical arguments can be used in both ways, to prove or disprove. one look at the comparison of god to us as being like the comparison of us to a culture of bacteria, the bacteria live without any knowledge of our existance, they may thrive within us, either devouring us or assisting us in a symbiotic relationship.

exactly. this is why any true scientist will be agnostic by definition.

wow guys...you all need to chill down just a little bit...if you think about it everyone has their own opinions... and you can't get mad cuz someone expressed their idea's...!!! so you all jus tneed to simmer down

indeed. which is why i get just a tad miffed when Reynes decides to pick fights just because i decided to post my opinion...some people can't leave well enough alone, i guess.

it is impossible to prove a negative. ... if you wish to claim that something is the case then it is for you to provide evidence; that's called Debate 101.

Does this not rather run contrary to the scientific method of falsification?

no. for a theory to be scientifically worthwhile it must present testable hypotheses...it must show why it is correct, why the facts existing to date are consistent with its conclusions, and it must provide ways that it could be disproven through study.

Agreed, but your blanket statement that "it is impossible to prove a negative" is incorrect as a generality.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.Can you show that they aren't human beings? Where's scientific proof for THAT? Or if it's just your personal opinion, this boils down to your word versus mine.

we don't see them as human beings (there is no strict definition of a human being) because:
1) in the earliests stages, they are just a bunch of cells that perform no human activity.
2) Their brains (providing you wait until they are formed) have not yet developped to a stage in which they start to function more or less like a human brain. the brainactivity in a fetus is the development of the brain and the nerve system itself. it cannot think that it even exists.

Do you call contraception using condoms murder? no. (if you are sane)
it's basicly the same thing, you don't allow an egg and a spermcell to form a human being that sits among us. abortion does this too. In both cases you just 'deny a possible child the right to exist' (and this shows why i don't think it's a right), so there is no fundamental difference.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

Ahem. Are you implying siencists want people to abort? I mean, someone invented knives. Knives are used to kill people. Therefore, every one who's got a knife is a killer? Don't think so.

Even if science invented abortions - and I'm not granting that - you can't blame it. Knives are good for peeling potatoes, too, right? It's the hand who uses the knife who is - or is not - to blame, not the knife itself. I know it's nothing new, but it's still true.

it is impossible to prove a negative. ... if you wish to claim that something is the case then it is for you to provide evidence; that's called Debate 101.

Does this not rather run contrary to the scientific method of falsification?

no. for a theory to be scientifically worthwhile it must present testable hypotheses...it must show why it is correct, why the facts existing to date are consistent with its conclusions, and it must provide ways that it could be disproven through study.

Agreed, but your blanket statement that "it is impossible to prove a negative" is incorrect as a generality.

well, at the essence of scientific theory you can't prove ANY statement. but we are talking about debating structure here, and the basic concept is that you cannot prove a negative because then you would have to provide all the evidence in the universe in every form...you'd have to present infinity to show that their possibility is not present, and that's ludicrous. what is reasonable is to say that if somebody wants to pose a theory they show why it would be the case. if they can't do that, or if their reasons are refuted, then they fail to make their case.

I mean, someone invented knives. Knives are used to kill people. Therefore, every one who's got a knife is a killer?

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Tom Lehrer
"Wernher von Braun"

Just to see what reaction it gets...

I mean, someone invented knives. Knives are used to kill people. Therefore, every one who's got a knife is a killer?

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Tom Lehrer
"Wernher von Braun"

Just to see what reaction it gets...

oooh, sweet quote. very interesting.

Even if science invented abortions - and I'm not granting that - you can't blame it. Knives are good for peeling potatoes, too, right? It's the hand who uses the knife who is - or is not - to blame, not the knife itself. I know it's nothing new, but it's still true.There is an object versus person problem here. Knives don't kill people, but an abortion does require someone to do the actual killing. So, yes, there is someone with an intent in order for it to happen.

Even if science invented abortions - and I'm not granting that - you can't blame it. Knives are good for peeling potatoes, too, right? It's the hand who uses the knife who is - or is not - to blame, not the knife itself. I know it's nothing new, but it's still true.There is an object versus person problem here. Knives don't kill people, but an abortion does require someone to do the actual killing. So, yes, there is someone with an intent in order for it to happen.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition. holding a knife doesn't. i don't think his comparison was valid in this case.

well, at the essence of scientific theory you can't prove ANY statement. but we are talking about debating structure here, and the basic concept is that you cannot prove a negative because then you would have to provide all the evidence in the universe in every form...you'd have to present infinity to show that their possibility is not present, and that's ludicrous. what is reasonable is to say that if somebody wants to pose a theory they show why it would be the case. if they can't do that, or if their reasons are refuted, then they fail to make their case.

Assuming the law of excluded middle holds, once I prove the statement "Socrates is taller than the average man", I have disproved the statement "Socrates is shorter than the average man".

well, at the essence of scientific theory you can't prove ANY statement. but we are talking about debating structure here, and the basic concept is that you cannot prove a negative because then you would have to provide all the evidence in the universe in every form...you'd have to present infinity to show that their possibility is not present, and that's ludicrous. what is reasonable is to say that if somebody wants to pose a theory they show why it would be the case. if they can't do that, or if their reasons are refuted, then they fail to make their case.

Assuming the law of excluded middle holds, once I prove the statement "Socrates is taller than the average man", I have disproved the statement "Socrates is shorter than the average man".

yeah, that's the definition system. the thing is, with pure scientific theory you could never prove that Socrates is taller than the average man, you could only prove that all alternatives are false...it's a weird bass-ackwards system, i know, and it took me a semester of "PH471: Science and the Theory Of Truth" to really get a hold of it. it's mostly semantics, but the implications are critical if you want to speak in purely scientific terms. for instance, in none of my papers for my bio classes am i allowed to say i proved anything, even if i really pretty much did...i can't "prove" i can only "fail to disprove" or "support" something...it's actually kind of a blow to the ego, such a downer way of refering to my work :P.

Assuming the law of excluded middle holds, once I prove the statement "Socrates is taller than the average man", I have disproved the statement "Socrates is shorter than the average man".

yeah, that's the definition system. the thing is, with pure scientific theory you could never prove that Socrates is taller than the average man, you could only prove that all alternatives are false...it's a weird bass-ackwards system, i know, and it took me a semester of "PH471: Science and the Theory Of Truth" to really get a hold of it. it's mostly semantics, but the implications are critical if you want to speak in purely scientific terms. for instance, in none of my papers for my bio classes am i allowed to say i proved anything, even if i really pretty much did...i can't "prove" i can only "fail to disprove" or "support" something...it's actually kind of a blow to the ego, such a downer way of refering to my work :P.

That's Karl Popper and falsification for you: a separate question is whether the actual scientific community does operate in that manner.

It also contains the assumption that the law of the excluded middle holds, which although a perpetual assumption is not without its ontological and epistemological ramifications. (Assuming that it doesn't hold just gets us another version of Russell's heterologous/autologous paradox - if the law of excluded middle doesn't hold, then the law of the excluded both does hold and doesn't hold...)

I mean, someone invented knives. Knives are used to kill people. Therefore, every one who's got a knife is a killer?

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Tom Lehrer
"Wernher von Braun"

Just to see what reaction it gets...

oooh, sweet quote. very interesting.

Actually, it's supposed to be funny. . . "In German or English, I know how to count down, und I'm learning chinese, says Wernher von Braun". I don't think TL was a big fan of this guy.

it's a weird bass-ackwards system, i know, and it took me a semester of "PH471: Science and the Theory Of Truth" to really get a hold of it.Wow, I thought I was the only one to take a crappy class similar to this one. After the class, you really start hating how anyone, in particular the media, refers to any scientific "discoveries". :lol:

it's a weird bass-ackwards system, i know, and it took me a semester of "PH471: Science and the Theory Of Truth" to really get a hold of it.Wow, I thought I was the only one to take a crappy class similar to this one. After the class, you really start hating how anyone, in particular the media, refers to any scientific "discoveries". :lol:
yeah, no kidding. i can't stand the way pop media refers to scienific studies and research...it just drives me up the wall. i know not everyone has a scientific background, but i guess i am a fundamentalist in the sense that i think everyone SHOULD have a basic level of education in the sciences :P.

it's a weird bass-ackwards system, i know, and it took me a semester of "PH471: Science and the Theory Of Truth" to really get a hold of it.Wow, I thought I was the only one to take a crappy class similar to this one. After the class, you really start hating how anyone, in particular the media, refers to any scientific "discoveries". :lol:
yeah, no kidding. i can't stand the way pop media refers to scienific studies and research...it just drives me up the wall. i know not everyone has a scientific background, but i guess i am a fundamentalist in the sense that i think everyone SHOULD have a basic level of education in the sciences :P.

Even if science invented abortions - and I'm not granting that - you can't blame it. Knives are good for peeling potatoes, too, right? It's the hand who uses the knife who is - or is not - to blame, not the knife itself. I know it's nothing new, but it's still true.There is an object versus person problem here. Knives don't kill people, but an abortion does require someone to do the actual killing. So, yes, there is someone with an intent in order for it to happen.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition. holding a knife doesn't. i don't think his comparison was valid in this case.

Ok, that wasn't the best comparison ever, granted. My point is sometimes abortion is a way to save the mother's life. In those cases, IMO, there is no killer. Of course we could argue as long as we wanted about which life is more valuable, and never come to an agreement.

It's just I feel for some people is easy to blame science for crimes that weren't commited for science's sake. Agreed, scientists discovered nuclear fussion. Later on, someone thought that would make great bombs. Is science to blame? Or just the one who used what science got to kill as many people as s/he can?

Unfortunately, science often discovers/invents things that can be used both for good and for bad. Maybe my former comparison would have made more sense if we think the aforementioned knife is science itself.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say science is always good and religion is always bad. And again, science/religion (any religion of your choice, really) may regret being used as excused for crimes they most probably wouldn't support.

Hmm.. still no response to me pointing out that abortions began before science did...

Even if science invented abortions - and I'm not granting that - you can't blame it. Knives are good for peeling potatoes, too, right? It's the hand who uses the knife who is - or is not - to blame, not the knife itself. I know it's nothing new, but it's still true.There is an object versus person problem here. Knives don't kill people, but an abortion does require someone to do the actual killing. So, yes, there is someone with an intent in order for it to happen.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition. holding a knife doesn't. i don't think his comparison was valid in this case.

Ok, that wasn't the best comparison ever, granted. My point is sometimes abortion is a way to save the mother's life. In those cases, IMO, there is no killer. Of course we could argue as long as we wanted about which life is more valuable, and never come to an agreement.

It's just I feel for some people is easy to blame science for crimes that weren't commited for science's sake. Agreed, scientists discovered nuclear fussion. Later on, someone thought that would make great bombs. Is science to blame? Or just the one who used what science got to kill as many people as s/he can?

Unfortunately, science often discovers/invents things that can be used both for good and for bad. Maybe my former comparison would have made more sense if we think the aforementioned knife is science itself.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say science is always good and religion is always bad. And again, science/religion (any religion of your choice, really) may regret being used as excused for crimes they most probably wouldn't support.

don't get me wrong, i don't think there is EVER anything wrong with learning, no matter what. only what you chose to do with the knowledge can be wrong, and that is why i embrace science but not religion. i don't think science provides morality, and that's why i like it. any tool can be a weapon in the wrong hands, and i don't blame the tool maker for that.

Hmm.. still no response to me pointing out that abortions began before science did...

of course not...if that was acknowledged then they wouldn't be able to blame science!!! that wouldn't be nearly as much fun!

plus, then they'd be back to square one with the body count deal. no, somehow i doubt anybody will be noticing what you said.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition.


Really: or just terminating a potential life?

Hmm.. still no response to me pointing out that abortions began before science did...

of course not...if that was acknowledged then they wouldn't be able to blame science!!! that wouldn't be nearly as much fun!

plus, then they'd be back to square one with the body count deal. no, somehow i doubt anybody will be noticing what you said.

I think it has to do with BWO making an important (and correct) observation, rather than anyone noticing it. :P I don't know if I agree with science beginning with Aristotle, but BWO's argument still stands even without a date. Abortion may be much more systematic than it once was, but is that the fault of science as a whole?

DP

TP

I think it is safe to say that people have been kicking each other in the belly or throwing themselves from trees long before science came on the scene. What science has done is to make abortion safer. Whether this has increased the amount of abortions that take place, and whether abortion is ethically right or wrong remain as distinct questions.

exactly. this is why any true scientist will be agnostic by definition.

lucky for scientists that there is no agnostic test to get into the club.

many many men and women who do great work in science are none the less true believers in their own religions.

you must be getting your definitions from the wrong place

exactly. this is why any true scientist will be agnostic by definition.

lucky for scientists that there is no agnostic test to get into the club.

many many men and women who do great work in science are none the less true believers in their own religions.


Surely a 'true' scientist can believe whatever they want: in God, the Devil, Pixies and Fairies, anything - just so long as it does not affect their professional work.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition.


Really: or just terminating a potential life?

no, a fetus is alive. it's called the LIFE cycle for a reason; there is no point at which dead tissue becomes alive. however, your skin cells are alive, too, but nobody is trying to pass laws forbidding you to exfoliate. whether or not something is alive is very different than whether it is a human.

im an agnostic and stuff, but killing fetuses just seems pretty disgusting to me.

exactly. this is why any true scientist will be agnostic by definition.

lucky for scientists that there is no agnostic test to get into the club.

many many men and women who do great work in science are none the less true believers in their own religions.


Surely a 'true' scientist can believe whatever they want: in God, the Devil, Pixies and Fairies, anything - just so long as it does not affect their professional work.

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

exactly. this is why any true scientist will be agnostic by definition.

lucky for scientists that there is no agnostic test to get into the club.

many many men and women who do great work in science are none the less true believers in their own religions.


Surely a 'true' scientist can believe whatever they want: in God, the Devil, Pixies and Fairies, anything - just so long as it does not affect their professional work.

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

Are you familiar with the Information Processing Theory of Cognition?

Are you familiar with the Information Processing Theory of Cognition?

the one proposed by Craik and Lockhart? pretty much, though i haven't studied it in depth. there's more evidence for the connectionistic model, so that's what my classes have tended to focus on.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition.
Really: or just terminating a potential life?
I love the lack of scientific thought with this type of comment. Definition of Life:The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. By definition, all cells of the baby are doing this within the womb. What in the world is potential about that?!?

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition.
Really: or just terminating a potential life?
I love the lack of scientific thought with this type of comment. Definition of Life:The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. By definition, all cells of the baby are doing this within the womb. What in the world is potential about that?!?

precisely. a fetus is alive, and nobody with the slightest notion of biology thinks otherwise. the debate is really whether the living tissue of the fetus deserves legal status as a human being, given that it may or may not posess the traits we use to qualify what is human. i believe that it is not justifiable to say that a fetus is a human, so i don't believe it is right to grant it such legal status. i have yet to be presented with a stable argument for why it should qualify as a human life, given that all such theories i have seen would have critical flaws in their definition of "human."

Are you familiar with the Information Processing Theory of Cognition?

the one proposed by Craik and Lockhart? pretty much, though i haven't studied it in depth. there's more evidence for the connectionistic model, so that's what my classes have tended to focus on.

I don't recall who proposed it. It basically uses a computer analogy to explain mental processes.

There are two computers. They have equivalent systems. Memory, working memory, etc. They have equivalent sensory capacity (ie. visual, audio, olfactory). They both have equivalent simulators that, given the input recieved, produce a set of results consistent with that input on the subject of "duck".

Lets call one of the computers A and the other B.

The two computers (and their related systems) are in two very different environments. They receive vastly different input. A concludes that the evidence is not sufficient to state that there is a duck or that there is not a duck. B concludes that the evidence is sufficient to state that there is indeed a duck.

Are you familiar with the Information Processing Theory of Cognition?

the one proposed by Craik and Lockhart? pretty much, though i haven't studied it in depth. there's more evidence for the connectionistic model, so that's what my classes have tended to focus on.

I don't recall who proposed it. It basically uses a computer analogy to explain mental processes.

There are two computers. They have equivalent systems. Memory, working memory, etc. They have equivalent sensory capacity (ie. visual, audio, olfactory). They both have equivalent simulators that, given the input recieved, produce a set of results consistent with that input on the subject of "duck".

Lets call one of the computers A and the other B.

The two computers (and their related systems) are in two very different environments. They receive vastly different input. A concludes that the evidence is not sufficient to state that there is a duck or that there is not a duck. B concludes that the evidence is sufficient to state that there is indeed a duck.

erm, yes...if they are in different environments they receive different information through their senses, and therefore reach different conclusions. i'm not sure what the revelation there is.

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

I posted in relation to this post by you.





I don't recall who proposed it. It basically uses a computer analogy to explain mental processes.

There are two computers. They have equivalent systems. Memory, working memory, etc. They have equivalent sensory capacity (ie. visual, audio, olfactory). They both have equivalent simulators that, given the input recieved, produce a set of results consistent with that input on the subject of "duck".

Lets call one of the computers A and the other B.

The two computers (and their related systems) are in two very different environments. They receive vastly different input. A concludes that the evidence is not sufficient to state that there is a duck or that there is not a duck. B concludes that the evidence is sufficient to state that there is indeed a duck.


erm, yes...if they are in different environments they receive different information through their senses, and therefore reach different conclusions. i'm not sure what the revelation there is.

Do you see the point now?

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

I posted in relation to this post by you.





I don't recall who proposed it. It basically uses a computer analogy to explain mental processes.

There are two computers. They have equivalent systems. Memory, working memory, etc. They have equivalent sensory capacity (ie. visual, audio, olfactory). They both have equivalent simulators that, given the input recieved, produce a set of results consistent with that input on the subject of "duck".

Lets call one of the computers A and the other B.

The two computers (and their related systems) are in two very different environments. They receive vastly different input. A concludes that the evidence is not sufficient to state that there is a duck or that there is not a duck. B concludes that the evidence is sufficient to state that there is indeed a duck.


erm, yes...if they are in different environments they receive different information through their senses, and therefore reach different conclusions. i'm not sure what the revelation there is.

Do you see the point now?

nope. science is about more than just your own personal observations and environment, and agnosticism is about saying that the information humans currently have is not sufficient to make a conclusion about the existence of God. no inconsistency there.

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

You're disgusting. PROVE?? And I suppose the burden of proof was on the Jews too, right? They were supposed to PROVE they were worthy of the title of human, yet conveniently they were denied the chance. Btw: the Holocaust was NOT about religion: it was about perceived race. Having read some of Hitler's writings on the Church, I can tell you he didn't like Christians much better, he just believed that most of them were of good "racial stock" and therefore worthy of saving. Actually, that godless warmonger had more in common with you atheists than any pious person.

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

You're disgusting. PROVE?? And I suppose the burden of proof was on the Jews too, right? They were supposed to PROVE they were worthy of the title of human, yet conveniently they were denied the chance. Btw: the Holocaust was NOT about religion: it was about perceived race. Having read some of Hitler's writings on the Church, I can tell you he didn't like Christians much better, he just believed that most of them were of good "racial stock" and therefore worthy of saving. Actually, that godless warmonger had more in common with you atheists than any pious person.

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

You're disgusting. PROVE?? And I suppose the burden of proof was on the Jews too, right? They were supposed to PROVE they were worthy of the title of human, yet conveniently they were denied the chance. Btw: the Holocaust was NOT about religion: it was about perceived race. Having read some of Hitler's writings on the Church, I can tell you he didn't like Christians much better, he just believed that most of them were of good "racial stock" and therefore worthy of saving. Actually, that godless warmonger had more in common with you atheists than any pious person.

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

and what im saying is that youre wrong.
wrong in that what you are saying does not reflect reality. the reality where scientists in real life really DO believe in god and really ARE scientists whether or not you think that makes sense.

science isnt an all encompassing belief; science is a job. people have jobs and do those jobs well or not.
then they have the rest of their lives.
some scientists are religious some arent, religion is a seperate part of their lives. there is nothing scientific about religion.
just as their political beliefs are. some scientists hold extremely illogical political beliefs yet do their jobs in science very well.
you dont get kicked out of the scientist guild for going to church on sunday

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

You're disgusting. PROVE?? And I suppose the burden of proof was on the Jews too, right? They were supposed to PROVE they were worthy of the title of human, yet conveniently they were denied the chance. Btw: the Holocaust was NOT about religion: it was about perceived race. Having read some of Hitler's writings on the Church, I can tell you he didn't like Christians much better, he just believed that most of them were of good "racial stock" and therefore worthy of saving. Actually, that godless warmonger had more in common with you atheists than any pious person.

hey, give credit where it's due! that's my quote!

and i take it from your emotive outburst that you also are unable to give any evidence why fetal tissue should have legal human status...well, no surprise there. i am, of course, very appreciative of your little history lesson, though i'm afraid it does nothing for the current issue. thanks anyway! :)

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

and what im saying is that youre wrong.
wrong in that what you are saying does not reflect reality. the reality where scientists in real life really DO believe in god and really ARE scientists whether or not you think that makes sense.

science isnt an all encompassing belief; science is a job. people have jobs and do those jobs well or not.
then they have the rest of their lives.
some scientists are religious some arent, religion is a seperate part of their lives. there is nothing scientific about religion.
just as their political beliefs are. some scientists hold extremely illogical political beliefs yet do their jobs in science very well.
you dont get kicked out of the scientist guild for going to church on sunday

erm, please read what i wrote again. i didn't say that all people who are employed as scientists would be that way. i didn't say that all people who make awesome contributions to science would be that way. please re-read my explanation of my usage of "true," and you'll see why your response doesn't really reply to what i was saying.

nope. science is about more than just your own personal observations and environment, and agnosticism is about saying that the information humans currently have is not sufficient to make a conclusion about the existence of God. no inconsistency there.

Frankly, that's an amazingly arrogant statement for agnosticism to make.

IMO, that statement would much more accurately read: an agnostic's belief is that they do not have sufficient evidence to make a conclusion about the existence of God.

Unless agnosticism is much more arrogant than I previously thought, that statement would more accurately reflect the reality of agnosticism. Perhaps I was wrong about agnosticism. I've certainly been wrong about such things before. Maybe it's just my optimism coming out.

This makes me curious. Does agnosticism claim that the only true knowledge humans have is that knowledge which has been verified through exhaustive scientific research? Or is that a personal belief?

youre still wrong, you have made a nonsensical definition where a "true" scientist becomes a kind of automaton in the service of verifiablity
these people do not exist
YOU may think that a person can be a full time "scientist" where everything they do say and think has to be scientifically tested but reality differs
if your definition doesnt reflect reality
its wrong
kinda scientific if you thnk about it.

nope. science is about more than just your own personal observations and environment, and agnosticism is about saying that the information humans currently have is not sufficient to make a conclusion about the existence of God. no inconsistency there.

Frankly, that's an amazingly arrogant statement for agnosticism to make.

IMO, that statement would much more accurately read: an agnostic's belief is that they do not have sufficient evidence to make a conclusion about the existence of God.

Unless agnosticism is much more arrogant than I previously thought, that statement would more accurately reflect the reality of agnosticism. Perhaps I was wrong about agnosticism. I've certainly been wrong about such things before. Maybe it's just my optimism coming out.

This makes me curious. Does agnosticism claim that the only true knowledge humans have is that knowledge which has been verified through exhaustive scientific research? Or is that a personal belief?

no, it's a reality. there is no way to prove God, either way. put it this way: if God came to earth and stood right in front of you, and moved mountains, and told you He was God, and did all sorts of amazing things, how could you know it was really God and not just some powerful being telling you he was God? a human could never KNOW for certain whether it's really God or just some manipulation of their limited human senses and faculties. an infinite and all-powerful being would be capable of things beyond the scope of our understanding, and would be utterly beyond our full comprehension. we could never KNOW whether it was real or not because it's reality would not be anything like the one we inhabit. there would be no way to accertain whether it was God or something else, since any being with such powers could alter us to believe as it chose.

and at the same time, God could be interacting with us every moment of every day in any manner he choses, and we would never know if He didn't wish us to. there is no way a human can prove that God isn't part of every second of existence, for the same reasons as in the opposite case.

it's not arrogance, it's honesty. when you are completely honest about the situation there is no way to accept or reject God using information...faith, and faith alone, can address the existence of God. since science cannot function using faith as a basis, a person who lives as and by science could not reach a conclusion about the existence of God, and would necessarily be agnostic.

youre still wrong, you have made a nonsensical definition where a "true" scientist becomes a kind of automaton in the service of verifiablity
these people do not exist
YOU may think that a person can be a full time "scientist" where everything they do say and think has to be scientifically tested but reality differs
if your definition doesnt reflect reality
its wrong
kinda scientific if you thnk about it.

these people exist. i am one. i live with these people and work with them every day. i am romantically involved with one. granted, it is a rare breed, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. i never claimed that many people would be able or willing to live such a difficult and mind-warping lifestyle.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

correction: millions have never lived due to abortion.

aside from that before the conventional abortions nowadays were thought of, people were having abortions. they would just do so by drinking strong potions of roots and various other little things that would poison the fetus out. or the good old kick in the stomach.

what i was saying is that if a person truly embraces science then they couldn't help but be agnostic (assuming they are honest with themselves) because that is the only path science "supports." if they chose to be religious then they are separating a part of their lives from science, because there is no way to support religion with scientific thought. similarly, believing that there is no God is an act of faith, and is unsupported by science. "true" in this case carries the connotation of "complete," since nobody who is completely a scientist could embrace a belief system other than agnosticism.

I have to disagree here. A scientist does not necessarily have to be agnostic, they just have to be open to other ideas. In the realm of religion, personal feeling (revelation, if you will) has a lot to do with what religion is followed. A scientist can believe in a certain religion, as long as any true evidence to the contrary can change their mind.

As a scientist, I could believe that the world is flat without evidence. However, when someone showed me the evidence that the world is actually round, my view of the world would need to change to accomodate that evidence. The difference between many religious people and many scientists is not in the original religious views - it is in how they react to any change in those views. Many religious people refuse to change their views of religion, instead trying to change their views of an event or the world to coincide with their religious views. A scientist, on the other hand, would change their view of God to coincide with the evidence they find in the world.

no, it's a reality. there is no way to prove God, either way. put it this way: if God came to earth and stood right in front of you, and moved mountains, and told you He was God, and did all sorts of amazing things, how could you know it was really God and not just some powerful being telling you he was God? a human could never KNOW for certain whether it's really God or just some manipulation of their limited human senses and faculties. an infinite and all-powerful being would be capable of things beyond the scope of our understanding, and would be utterly beyond our full comprehension. we could never KNOW whether it was real or not because it's reality would not be anything like the one we inhabit. there would be no way to accertain whether it was God or something else, since any being with such powers could alter us to believe as it chose.

and at the same time, God could be interacting with us every moment of every day in any manner he choses, and we would never know if He didn't wish us to. there is no way a human can prove that God isn't part of every second of existence, for the same reasons as in the opposite case.

it's not arrogance, it's honesty. when you are completely honest about the situation there is no way to accept or reject God using information...faith, and faith alone, can address the existence of God. since science cannot function using faith as a basis, a person who lives as and by science could not reach a conclusion about the existence of God, and would necessarily be agnostic.

There is a difference between something existing, and our perception of its nature. Faith is necessary for certain conceptualizations of God, but not for Her existence. It could be that the being I worship is not exactly equivalent to the being I think I worship. I know that is a possibilty, and my strong suspicion is that I will never be able to have a complete and entirely accurate perception of God (ie. the being I worship/commune with).

My belief that there is a God is based on evidence, evidence I was unable to disprove by falsification. She is powerful. She interacts with me. These I know, inasmuch as my capacity to know allows me. I am a limited human being, after all, just as you are. Please don't presume that your capacity to know is somehow superior to mine just because you limit your knowledge to the scientific, that's just silly. Actually, this leads to another set of questions. Is the only basis of your belief system science/logic? If so, how do you know that knowledge acquired in a manner consistent with scientific principles is any more accurate than knowledge acquired by other means?

Whether the beliefs that I hold in addition to the three I listed above are accurate reflections of reality, I do not know. That is where the faith comes in. I have faith that God is benevolent, that God can control us but allows us free will, etc.

DP

no, it's a reality. there is no way to prove God, either way. put it this way: if God came to earth and stood right in front of you, and moved mountains, and told you He was God, and did all sorts of amazing things, how could you know it was really God and not just some powerful being telling you he was God? a human could never KNOW for certain whether it's really God or just some manipulation of their limited human senses and faculties. an infinite and all-powerful being would be capable of things beyond the scope of our understanding, and would be utterly beyond our full comprehension. we could never KNOW whether it was real or not because it's reality would not be anything like the one we inhabit. there would be no way to accertain whether it was God or something else, since any being with such powers could alter us to believe as it chose.

and at the same time, God could be interacting with us every moment of every day in any manner he choses, and we would never know if He didn't wish us to. there is no way a human can prove that God isn't part of every second of existence, for the same reasons as in the opposite case.

it's not arrogance, it's honesty. when you are completely honest about the situation there is no way to accept or reject God using information...faith, and faith alone, can address the existence of God. since science cannot function using faith as a basis, a person who lives as and by science could not reach a conclusion about the existence of God, and would necessarily be agnostic.

There is a difference between something existing, and our perception of its nature. Faith is necessary for certain conceptualizations of God, but not for Her existence. It could be that the being I worship is not exactly equivalent to the being I think I worship. I know that is a possibilty, and my strong suspicion is that I will never be able to have a complete and entirely accurate perception of God (ie. the being I worship/commune with).

My belief that there is a God is based on evidence, evidence I was unable to disprove by falsification. She is powerful. She interacts with me. These I know, inasmuch as my capacity to know allows me. I am a limited human being, after all, just as you are. Please don't presume that your capacity to know is somehow superior to mine just because you limit your knowledge to the scientific, that's just silly. Actually, this leads to another set of questions. Is the only basis of your belief system science/logic? If so, how do you know that knowledge acquired in a manner consistent with scientific principles is any more accurate than knowledge acquired by other means?

Whether the beliefs that I hold in addition to the three I listed above are accurate reflections of reality, I do not know. That is where the faith comes in. I have faith that God is benevolent, that God can control us but allows us free will, etc.

well, it' sounds like you basically just agreed with me. i obviously don't have a problem with people deciding to believe in whatever way they feel best, so more power to you if you've found a system that works for you.

no, it's a reality. there is no way to prove God, either way. put it this way: if God came to earth and stood right in front of you, and moved mountains, and told you He was God, and did all sorts of amazing things, how could you know it was really God and not just some powerful being telling you he was God? a human could never KNOW for certain whether it's really God or just some manipulation of their limited human senses and faculties. an infinite and all-powerful being would be capable of things beyond the scope of our understanding, and would be utterly beyond our full comprehension. we could never KNOW whether it was real or not because it's reality would not be anything like the one we inhabit. there would be no way to accertain whether it was God or something else, since any being with such powers could alter us to believe as it chose.

and at the same time, God could be interacting with us every moment of every day in any manner he choses, and we would never know if He didn't wish us to. there is no way a human can prove that God isn't part of every second of existence, for the same reasons as in the opposite case.

it's not arrogance, it's honesty. when you are completely honest about the situation there is no way to accept or reject God using information...faith, and faith alone, can address the existence of God. since science cannot function using faith as a basis, a person who lives as and by science could not reach a conclusion about the existence of God, and would necessarily be agnostic.

There is a difference between something existing, and our perception of its nature. Faith is necessary for certain conceptualizations of God, but not for Her existence. It could be that the being I worship is not exactly equivalent to the being I think I worship. I know that is a possibilty, and my strong suspicion is that I will never be able to have a complete and entirely accurate perception of God (ie. the being I worship/commune with).

My belief that there is a God is based on evidence, evidence I was unable to disprove by falsification. She is powerful. She interacts with me. These I know, inasmuch as my capacity to know allows me. I am a limited human being, after all, just as you are. Please don't presume that your capacity to know is somehow superior to mine just because you limit your knowledge to the scientific, that's just silly. Actually, this leads to another set of questions. Is the only basis of your belief system science/logic? If so, how do you know that knowledge acquired in a manner consistent with scientific principles is any more accurate than knowledge acquired by other means?

Whether the beliefs that I hold in addition to the three I listed above are accurate reflections of reality, I do not know. That is where the faith comes in. I have faith that God is benevolent, that God can control us but allows us free will, etc.

well, it' sounds like you basically just agreed with me. i obviously don't have a problem with people deciding to believe in whatever way they feel best, so more power to you if you've found a system that works for you.

Where did I agree with you?

no, it's a reality. there is no way to prove God, either way. put it this way: if God came to earth and stood right in front of you, and moved mountains, and told you He was God, and did all sorts of amazing things, how could you know it was really God and not just some powerful being telling you he was God? a human could never KNOW for certain whether it's really God or just some manipulation of their limited human senses and faculties. an infinite and all-powerful being would be capable of things beyond the scope of our understanding, and would be utterly beyond our full comprehension. we could never KNOW whether it was real or not because it's reality would not be anything like the one we inhabit. there would be no way to accertain whether it was God or something else, since any being with such powers could alter us to believe as it chose.

and at the same time, God could be interacting with us every moment of every day in any manner he choses, and we would never know if He didn't wish us to. there is no way a human can prove that God isn't part of every second of existence, for the same reasons as in the opposite case.

it's not arrogance, it's honesty. when you are completely honest about the situation there is no way to accept or reject God using information...faith, and faith alone, can address the existence of God. since science cannot function using faith as a basis, a person who lives as and by science could not reach a conclusion about the existence of God, and would necessarily be agnostic.

There is a difference between something existing, and our perception of its nature. Faith is necessary for certain conceptualizations of God, but not for Her existence. It could be that the being I worship is not exactly equivalent to the being I think I worship. I know that is a possibilty, and my strong suspicion is that I will never be able to have a complete and entirely accurate perception of God (ie. the being I worship/commune with).

My belief that there is a God is based on evidence, evidence I was unable to disprove by falsification. She is powerful. She interacts with me. These I know, inasmuch as my capacity to know allows me. I am a limited human being, after all, just as you are. Please don't presume that your capacity to know is somehow superior to mine just because you limit your knowledge to the scientific, that's just silly. Actually, this leads to another set of questions. Is the only basis of your belief system science/logic? If so, how do you know that knowledge acquired in a manner consistent with scientific principles is any more accurate than knowledge acquired by other means?

Whether the beliefs that I hold in addition to the three I listed above are accurate reflections of reality, I do not know. That is where the faith comes in. I have faith that God is benevolent, that God can control us but allows us free will, etc.

well, it' sounds like you basically just agreed with me. i obviously don't have a problem with people deciding to believe in whatever way they feel best, so more power to you if you've found a system that works for you.

Where did I agree with you?

your admission that faith is the link between humans and God. you chose to accept faith, and in that way tie yourself to your religion...that's fine, and that's exactly what i was saying. i have never claimed that i am superior to anybody, just that objective facts as humans perceive them cannot support or refute God so a person who bases his or her life on those facts will be agnostic by definition. if you base you life on those facts AND on faith you can certainly reach other conclusions, and you apparently have. no conflict.

Hey, we're actually discussing stuff like this at my site. If anybody's interested, you can show up at saintelrosth.com and join the forum. Feel free to post a new topic, and we'll start debate.

Hey, we're actually hosting debates at my website if anybody's interested. Its SaintElrosth.com. If you wanna get in on it, just show up to the site and register on the forum. Its free. Feel free to post your own topic if ours don't interest you, and we'll discuss it too.

no, it's a reality. there is no way to prove God, either way. put it this way: if God came to earth and stood right in front of you, and moved mountains, and told you He was God, and did all sorts of amazing things, how could you know it was really God and not just some powerful being telling you he was God? a human could never KNOW for certain whether it's really God or just some manipulation of their limited human senses and faculties. an infinite and all-powerful being would be capable of things beyond the scope of our understanding, and would be utterly beyond our full comprehension. we could never KNOW whether it was real or not because it's reality would not be anything like the one we inhabit. there would be no way to accertain whether it was God or something else, since any being with such powers could alter us to believe as it chose.

and at the same time, God could be interacting with us every moment of every day in any manner he choses, and we would never know if He didn't wish us to. there is no way a human can prove that God isn't part of every second of existence, for the same reasons as in the opposite case.

it's not arrogance, it's honesty. when you are completely honest about the situation there is no way to accept or reject God using information...faith, and faith alone, can address the existence of God. since science cannot function using faith as a basis, a person who lives as and by science could not reach a conclusion about the existence of God, and would necessarily be agnostic.

There is a difference between something existing, and our perception of its nature. Faith is necessary for certain conceptualizations of God, but not for Her existence. It could be that the being I worship is not exactly equivalent to the being I think I worship. I know that is a possibilty, and my strong suspicion is that I will never be able to have a complete and entirely accurate perception of God (ie. the being I worship/commune with).

My belief that there is a God is based on evidence, evidence I was unable to disprove by falsification. She is powerful. She interacts with me. These I know, inasmuch as my capacity to know allows me. I am a limited human being, after all, just as you are. Please don't presume that your capacity to know is somehow superior to mine just because you limit your knowledge to the scientific, that's just silly. Actually, this leads to another set of questions. Is the only basis of your belief system science/logic? If so, how do you know that knowledge acquired in a manner consistent with scientific principles is any more accurate than knowledge acquired by other means?

Whether the beliefs that I hold in addition to the three I listed above are accurate reflections of reality, I do not know. That is where the faith comes in. I have faith that God is benevolent, that God can control us but allows us free will, etc.

well, it' sounds like you basically just agreed with me. i obviously don't have a problem with people deciding to believe in whatever way they feel best, so more power to you if you've found a system that works for you.

Where did I agree with you?

your admission that faith is the link between humans and God.

I said no such thing. I said that faith is the source for some of my unproven assumptions about God's nature, not that it is the link between humans and God. Perhaps the syntax I used did not make that clear.

you chose to accept faith, and in that way tie yourself to your religion...that's fine, and that's exactly what i was saying. i have never claimed that i am superior to anybody, just that objective facts as humans perceive them cannot support or refute God so a person who bases his or her life on those facts will be agnostic by definition. if you base you life on those facts AND on faith you can certainly reach other conclusions, and you apparently have. no conflict.

Yep, still conflict, unfortunately.

You have faith too, Bottle. A very strong faith from what I can tell. It is Faith that differs in some ways from my own, but faith nonetheless. Science/logic is your religion. There is nothing wrong with that. I respect your faith, and understand that you arrived at it in a manner that was quite as valid as my own.

While I usually agree with your stand on most issues Bottle, I'm gonna have to go out on a tangent on this one. I don't believe in 'God' in the traditional sense, but there does seem to be some sort of, I don't know, unifiying force or plan for the universe. Call it God or whatever. I just don't believe humankind has the capacity or ability to comprehend or percieve it fully. We're out on the fringes. I certainly don't buy into the arrogant idea that we're central to this plan or even of minor importance, but we are part of it. But I do completely reject the 'caring shepard' and 'made in his image' views of god that most religions promote.

Just my two cents worth.

your admission that faith is the link between humans and God.

I said no such thing. I said that faith is the source for some of my unproven assumptions about God's nature, not that it is the link between humans and God. Perhaps the syntax I used did not make that clear.


erm, you still aren't making that clear. you are making assumptions about God based on faith, and without faith you could not make those assumptions. there you go.


you chose to accept faith, and in that way tie yourself to your religion...that's fine, and that's exactly what i was saying. i have never claimed that i am superior to anybody, just that objective facts as humans perceive them cannot support or refute God so a person who bases his or her life on those facts will be agnostic by definition. if you base you life on those facts AND on faith you can certainly reach other conclusions, and you apparently have. no conflict.

Yep, still conflict, unfortunately.

You have faith too, Bottle. A very strong faith from what I can tell. It is Faith that differs in some ways from my own, but faith nonetheless. Science/logic is your religion. There is nothing wrong with that. I respect your faith, and understand that you arrived at it in a manner that was quite as valid as my own.

perhaps i haven't made my own views clear. i don't have faith in science, since i retain my doubt of materialism. i don't believe science has all the answers, and i don't believe the answers it does provide are absolute. i don't have faith in science beyond practical "faith" for the sake of discussions; i have to "take it on faith" that materialism is accurate to be able to have cause and effect discussions with collegues, for example. but all those discussions carry the understanding that they only hold solid IF materialism is valid, and i accept that we cannot prove that. i don't claim we do. my beliefs are based on the idea that empiricism is limited and that human perception is thus limited because that perception is based on the assumption of empiricism. i don't deny any of that, in fact it is the basis of my life philosophy.

i don't have faith according to any conventional definitions of it, though playing with semantics and using careful definitions of human cognition would show that all humans must have faith if they have brain activity. i suppose it's all in your definitions, and i am fine with that. i believe faith is a necessary evil, and that it is best to minimize faith and faith-based actions in every way possible, but since assumptions are necessary for conscious life i know that faith will probably always be a persistent force.

erm, you still aren't making that clear. you are making assumptions about God based on faith, and without faith you could not make those assumptions. there you go.

I made a distinction between the basic premises, and the secondary premises, saying that by my definition of faith, the former statements are not based on faith, but evidence, and the latter assumptions are based on faith.

My point was that a person, even a scientist, can arrive at Theism without being 'unscientific' or 'unreasonable'.

Only if we define faith as an acceptance of scientifically unproven assumptions for the purpose of utility do my three basic premises about God's existence and nature constitute faith. I attempted to demonstrate that with this definition of faith, the whole basis of any of our belief systems is faith, and thus any belief system would be unscientific/unreasonable (including science/logic).

perhaps i haven't made my own views clear. i don't have faith in science, since i retain my doubt of materialism. i don't believe science has all the answers, and i don't believe the answers it does provide are absolute. i don't have faith in science beyond practical "faith" for the sake of discussions; i have to "take it on faith" that materialism is accurate to be able to have cause and effect discussions with collegues, for example. but all those discussions carry the understanding that they only hold solid IF materialism is valid, and i accept that we cannot prove that. i don't claim we do. my beliefs are based on the idea that empiricism is limited and that human perception is thus limited because that perception is based on the assumption of empiricism. i don't deny any of that, in fact it is the basis of my life philosophy.

i don't have faith according to any conventional definitions of it, though playing with semantics and using careful definitions of human cognition would show that all humans must have faith if they have brain activity. i suppose it's all in your definitions, and i am fine with that. i believe faith is a necessary evil, and that it is best to minimize faith and faith-based actions in every way possible, but since assumptions are necessary for conscious life i know that faith will probably always be a persistent force.

That does explain things a bit. It sounds to me like your philosophy is at it's core nihilistic. But then, maybe I define Nihilism differently than you do. :wink:

precisely. a fetus is alive, and nobody with the slightest notion of biology thinks otherwise. the debate is really whether the living tissue of the fetus deserves legal status as a human being, given that it may or may not posess the traits we use to qualify what is human. i believe that it is not justifiable to say that a fetus is a human, so i don't believe it is right to grant it such legal status. i have yet to be presented with a stable argument for why it should qualify as a human life, given that all such theories i have seen would have critical flaws in their definition of "human."This logic falls under the Slippery Slope Theorems. If you decide that even if it has human DNA, it is not human, then a fetus never becomes human. Today it's not human, tomorrow is just a few cells more, next month is just a few cells more. If we use DNA and cellular progression to determine that all other creatures are a certain type of creature, why stop with humans. And since, unlike a cancer, its end result is an adult, why charactarize it as anything else. It doesn't follow basic scientific principles to use humanity as an exception to how other creatures are already viewed. Hey, if we just keep raising the bar, I can justify that anyone under 20 and over 30 is not human (ripe child bearing years), and therefore can be eliminated. It would be one way to solve the Social Security problem.

precisely. a fetus is alive, and nobody with the slightest notion of biology thinks otherwise. the debate is really whether the living tissue of the fetus deserves legal status as a human being, given that it may or may not posess the traits we use to qualify what is human. i believe that it is not justifiable to say that a fetus is a human, so i don't believe it is right to grant it such legal status. i have yet to be presented with a stable argument for why it should qualify as a human life, given that all such theories i have seen would have critical flaws in their definition of "human."This logic falls under the Slippery Slope Theorems. If you decide that even if it has human DNA, it is not human, then a fetus never becomes human. Today it's not human, tomorrow is just a few cells more, next month is just a few cells more. If we use DNA and cellular progression to determine that all other creatures are a certain type of creature, why stop with humans. And since, unlike a cancer, its end result is an adult, why charactarize it as anything else. It doesn't follow basic scientific principles to use humanity as an exception to how other creatures are already viewed. Hey, if we just keep raising the bar, I can justify that anyone under 20 and over 30 is not human (ripe child bearing years), and therefore can be eliminated. It would be one way to solve the Social Security problem.

Why not just say it is not a human until it comes out of the mother's womb?

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.


Science did not invent abortion - or are you seriously claiming that no abortions took place before science came into being (we'll call it circa 300BC and credit Aristotle with inventing science, for the sake of argument)?I'm not denying that abortions began a long time ago, but science has always existed. Look at it this way... Would you consider architecture part of science? How about physics? Advanced math? Metallurgy? Chemistry? Astronomy? The Egyptians were using all of these upwards of three thousand years ago, to the extent that to this day we don't know how the pyramids were built. That just about kills your "science began 2304 years ago" arguement.

Hmm.. still no response to me pointing out that abortions began before science did...


of course not...if that was acknowledged then they wouldn't be able to blame science!!! that wouldn't be nearly as much fun!

plus, then they'd be back to square one with the body count deal. no, somehow i doubt anybody will be noticing what you said.Abortion is a product of science, at least the abortion that we see now. Science thought it up. Science approved it. Science carries it out EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.Can you show that they aren't human beings? Where's scientific proof for THAT? Or if it's just your personal opinion, this boils down to your word versus mine.

we don't see them as human beings (there is no strict definition of a human being) because:
1) in the earliests stages, they are just a bunch of cells that perform no human activity.Well, then, how many cells do there have to be before science considers the "fetus" to be human? Better yet--what about partial-birth abortion? I think it's safe to say that the cells are showing human activity when the baby is being born.

2) Their brains (providing you wait until they are formed) have not yet developped to a stage in which they start to function more or less like a human brain. the brainactivity in a fetus is the development of the brain and the nerve system itself. it cannot think that it even exists.Yes, but thing is that it will. It is the only thing that will.

Do you call contraception using condoms murder? no. (if you are sane)
it's basicly the same thing, you don't allow an egg and a spermcell to form a human being that sits among us. abortion does this too. In both cases you just 'deny a possible child the right to exist' (and this shows why i don't think it's a right), so there is no fundamental difference.I had never thought about that before. Thanks for bringing it up. Being I'm only 18 and have never been in that kind of situation, however, there is no reason I would have considered it.

wow guys...you all need to chill down just a little bit...if you think about it everyone has their own opinions... and you can't get mad cuz someone expressed their idea's...!!! so you all jus tneed to simmer down

indeed. which is why i get just a tad miffed when Reynes decides to pick fights just because i decided to post my opinion...some people can't leave well enough alone, i guess.If I came across this way, Bottle, I apologize. At that point, I was the only person who was speaking on the pro-religion side, so I guess I did take it personally.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.

Yes! believe in Jesus or suffer! :twisted:

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.Oh, please. I've had enough of it in life. What kind of loving god would let my grandparents burn to death?

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.Oh, please. I've had enough of it in life. What kind of loving god would let my grandparents burn to death?Wait a second... don't I know you from school? I think I know who you are. Watch out for this guy--he's a habitual liar.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.Oh, please. I've had enough of it in life. What kind of loving god would let my grandparents burn to death?Wait a second... don't I know you from school? I think I know who you are. Watch out for this guy--he's a habitual liar.Bull. You don't know me.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.Oh, please. I've had enough of it in life. What kind of loving god would let my grandparents burn to death?Wait a second... don't I know you from school? I think I know who you are. Watch out for this guy--he's a habitual liar.Bull. You don't know me.Sure. You were talking about this three days ago. Right after you finished talking about how you "totaled your car running from the police" after the "race," remember? Then you heard that Rick's grandfather had died and you said that your grandparents had been burned to death.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.Oh, please. I've had enough of it in life. What kind of loving god would let my grandparents burn to death?Wait a second... don't I know you from school? I think I know who you are. Watch out for this guy--he's a habitual liar.Bull. You don't know me.Sure. You were talking about this three days ago. Right after you finished talking about how you "totaled your car running from the police" after the "race," remember? Then you heard that Rick's grandfather had died and you said that your grandparents had been burned to death.

By the way, I just got an interesting telegram:
Stay out of "God." We'll discuss this later.

If I do recall, the mods have a say when you post lies about another nation in the forum. Don't mess with me, man.

If I do recall, the mods have a say when you post lies about another nation in the forum. Don't mess with me, Zach.Zach, eh? However did you know that?

By the way, why did you edit that post, "Carturn"?

If I do recall, the mods have a say when you post lies about another nation in the forum. Don't mess with me, Zach.Zach, eh? However did you know that?I edited the post because I wanted to ADD the "don't mess with me" part. You aren't a good listener. Also, "the Zachocracy of Holbrookia?" How hard could it be to make that connection?

If I do recall, the mods have a say when you post lies about another nation in the forum. Don't mess with me, Zach.Zach, eh? However did you know that?I edited the post because I wanted to ADD the "don't mess with me" part. You aren't a good listener. Also, "the Zachocracy of Holbrookia?" How hard could it be to make that connection?

When were you looking at my nation? You might want to scurry away before this develops any further, Carturn. You're too new to have the reputation of a liar.

I think I'm gonna come out and say it. I think "believers" are delusional. You might as well believe in "Winnie the Pooh", so long as it isn't someone in whose name people have been killed :roll:
I think that the scientists are right, as should any reasonable person.

Your ignorance will cost you at death. Until then, have a nice day.Oh, please. I've had enough of it in life. What kind of loving god would let my grandparents burn to death?Wait a second... don't I know you from school? I think I know who you are. Watch out for this guy--he's a habitual liar.Bull. You don't know me.Sure. You were talking about this three days ago. Right after you finished talking about how you "totaled your car running from the police" after the "race," remember? Then you heard that Rick's grandfather had died and you said that your grandparents had been burned to death.

Yes! I am going to believe one random person over the internet instead of another random person over the internet! Go me! :P

precisely. a fetus is alive, and nobody with the slightest notion of biology thinks otherwise. the debate is really whether the living tissue of the fetus deserves legal status as a human being, given that it may or may not posess the traits we use to qualify what is human. i believe that it is not justifiable to say that a fetus is a human, so i don't believe it is right to grant it such legal status. i have yet to be presented with a stable argument for why it should qualify as a human life, given that all such theories i have seen would have critical flaws in their definition of "human."This logic falls under the Slippery Slope Theorems. If you decide that even if it has human DNA, it is not human, then a fetus never becomes human.


you seem to have misunderstood; i agree with Bottle that having human DNA is not enough IN AND OF ITSELF to consider a living entity human. for example, your liver has human DNA and is more complex than a fetus at 1 month gestation, but i don't think your liver is a human being. identical twins have idential DNA, but that doesn't make them idential human beings. humanness is not determined by DNA alone, and many things that have human DNA (like individual cells or organs) are not human beings.


Today it's not human, tomorrow is just a few cells more, next month is just a few cells more. If we use DNA and cellular progression to determine that all other creatures are a certain type of creature, why stop with humans. And since, unlike a cancer, its end result is an adult, why charactarize it as anything else.


the end result of a pregnancy isn't certain by any means. we cannot define something by what it may or may not become in the future, that's the real slippery slope. as has been said before, we can't start claiming that acorns are trees, and we can't claim pre-viable fetuses are humans.


It doesn't follow basic scientific principles to use humanity as an exception to how other creatures are already viewed. Hey, if we just keep raising the bar, I can justify that anyone under 20 and over 30 is not human (ripe child bearing years), and therefore can be eliminated. It would be one way to solve the Social Security problem.

i don't really see how you would justify any of that, but if you think you can please try. that would be interesting to see.

I was just about to say BUMP. Thanks, plain-bellied sneetches.

Well, then, how many cells do there have to be before science considers the "fetus" to be human? Better yet--what about partial-birth abortion? I think it's safe to say that the cells are showing human activity when the baby is being born.

Most scientists I know would place the mark at the point where a fetus can exist on its own outside the womb. Others (as evidenced by many state laws) place it at the point of "quickening" - right around when the nervous system becomes functional and the fetus can move on its own.

As for partial birth abortions, the fact that the procedure is a late-term abortion, and late term (as in third trimester) abortions are only performed if the woman's health is in danger shows that science and the law do make a distinction. Roe vs. Wade stated basically that 1st trimester (before quickening generally) - abortion if the woman wants it, 2nd trimester - only under doctor's suggestion, 3rd trimester - only if continuing the pregnancy is a significant danger to the mother.

So, in the US anyways, there is a significant distinction made - although in most states the fetus is not given full rights until it is born. This can actually be seen as a good thing too, unless you want women prosecuted for tripping up and killing their fetuses.

I was just about to say BUMP. Thanks, plain-bellied sneetches.

thanks from me, too...you said it exactly as i would have, and saved me the trouble! :)

I'm not denying that abortions began a long time ago, but science has always existed. Look at it this way... Would you consider architecture part of science? How about physics? Advanced math? Metallurgy? Chemistry? Astronomy? The Egyptians were using all of these upwards of three thousand years ago, to the extent that to this day we don't know how the pyramids were built. That just about kills your "science began 2304 years ago" arguement.


No, I would describe most of your examples in that context as technics, not as science. (I would also exclude maths from the field of science for philosophical reasons, as it is a purely axiomatic system which can be created without ever looking at the world for empirical evidence). Science is methodology, and one of a particular kind.

Science has always existed, has it? Even longer than humankind? So who was doing science during the cretaceous period then?

The claim that we don't know how the pyramids were built is disingenuous: we know of several different techniques which could have been used to build them, but we do not know exactly which methods were used.

I grabbed Aristotle as a handy delineating starting point for science as he signifies a point of unification of many different strands of proto-scientific thought, but I am not asserting that he invented science out of whole cloth.

However, the point remains: science did not invent the abortion.

*Question: do you call architects scientists? I wouldn't: 'creative engineers that use science', yes, but 'scientists', no.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition.


Really: or just terminating a potential life?

no, a fetus is alive. it's called the LIFE cycle for a reason; there is no point at which dead tissue becomes alive. however, your skin cells are alive, too, but nobody is trying to pass laws forbidding you to exfoliate. whether or not something is alive is very different than whether it is a human.

In my initial reading I had Bottle's post as "...involves the ending of a life...", which was an error on my part. In the end both my statement and Bottle's original can be true, but that depends on equivocation.

Yaknow... yeah.

Just a couple minor thoughts.

Fetus means baby you know, it's just a latin term used to confuse people. Basically abortion clinic marketing, calling it a baby was bad for business, you should probably find a new term not drenched in bloody money.

Legal definition of being alive is having brain activity and a heartbeat, so, an in-utero child of about 1-2 months is legally a living human being.

More people have been killed in the name of Communism in the past 100 years than have been killed in the name of Christianity in the past 2000.

This thread is pointless trolling, and should be deleted, as it's sure to offend people, it sure did offend me.

yeah, abortion involves the ending of life, by definition.


Really: or just terminating a potential life?

no, a fetus is alive. it's called the LIFE cycle for a reason; there is no point at which dead tissue becomes alive. however, your skin cells are alive, too, but nobody is trying to pass laws forbidding you to exfoliate. whether or not something is alive is very different than whether it is a human.

In my initial reading I had Bottle's post as "...involves the ending of a life...", which was an error on my part. In the end both my statement and Bottle's original can be true, but that depends on equivocation.

ahhhh, i see where the confusion was. and i agree...a fetus is alive, but i certainly wouldn't say it is "a life," in the way that a human being is a life.

Yaknow... yeah.

Just a couple minor thoughts.

Fetus means baby you know, it's just a latin term used to confuse people. Basically abortion clinic marketing, calling it a baby was bad for business, you should probably find a new term not drenched in bloody money.

Legal definition of being alive is having brain activity and a heartbeat, so, an in-utero child of about 1-2 months is legally a living human being.

More people have been killed in the name of Communism in the past 100 years than have been killed in the name of Christianity in the past 2000.

This thread is pointless trolling, and should be deleted, as it's sure to offend people, it sure did offend me.
wow, talk about trolling...you sure did a bang up job of it.

first off, let's see some facts to support your wild theories...we don't speak latin much in America, what with it being a dead language and all, and since pretty much all our words are derived from other languages we have long since accepted that those words will have adapted from the meaning they held in those other languages. at least, those of us who passed 9th grade English accepted it. the word "fetus" means "The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal." or, in humans, "the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo." so "fetus" can't very well be synonymous with "baby," now can it? unless babies stay in the womb until they're toddlers, that is.

next, given that the Catholic Church kills several million people each year by giving them blatantly false information about AIDS, i'd say it's hard for Communism to even hold a candle to the Christians when it comes to death toll. but feel free to try to back up your wild claims, it should be fun to watch.

also, brain activity BEYOND THE BRAINSTEM is used to determine life in modern medicine, since the brainstem does nothing more than keep your heart beating and maintain other basic functions; a person who has only brainstem activity is generally called "braindead," and people with functional brainstems but irreparable destroyed frontal regions are usually allowed to die peacefully because they will never be conscious again. a fetus at 1-2 months doesn't even have a frontal cortex, so it lacks the portions of the brain that distinguish human brains from other animal brains. to put it in simpler terms, the brain of a human fetus is neurologically indistinguishable from that of a newt at 1 month gestation. it's about on par with a dog at 3. if you want to claim that brain development defines humanity, then if you claim a 1-month fetus is human you should also be campaigning to give human legal status to all organisms with neurological development equal to or greater than newts. enjoy your new-found activism!

Fetus means baby you know, it's just a latin term used to confuse people. Basically abortion clinic marketing, calling it a baby was bad for business, you should probably find a new term not drenched in bloody money.

Are you implying that the tradition of using latin words for medical terms all dates back to a plot by an abortion clinic? The fact that the modern medical establishment grew out of the scholarly environment of the Renaissance and the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman medical texts had nothing to do with it? The fact that Latin was a lingua franca used by scientists, priests and academics for almost two thousand years had nothing to do with it?



More people have been killed in the name of Communism in the past 100 years than have been killed in the name of Christianity in the past 2000.

And more people have died of cancer than either, while less people have been killed in hang-gliding accidents. Your point being?

the word "fetus" means "The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal." or, in humans, "the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo." so "fetus" can't very well be synonymous with "baby," now can it? Ummm, I assume you are speakly only scientifically. As you know, this is really a legal issue and the definition of fetus has recently been used all the way up to actual birth. The science has become irrelevant.

next, given that the Catholic Church kills several million people each year by giving them blatantly false information about AIDS, i'd say it's hard for Communism to even hold a candle to the Christians when it comes to death toll. but feel free to try to back up your wild claims, it should be fun to watch. Wow, intent means nothing nowadays. Hate to be in your court of law. I am not really sure what AIDS information you have been getting, but I haven't a clue what you are talking about here.


a fetus at 1-2 months doesn't even have a frontal cortex, so it lacks the portions of the brain that distinguish human brains from other animal brains. to put it in simpler terms, the brain of a human fetus is neurologically indistinguishable from that of a newt at 1 month gestation. it's about on par with a dog at 3. if you want to claim that brain development defines humanity, then if you claim a 1-month fetus is human you should also be campaigning to give human legal status to all organisms with neurological development equal to or greater than newts. enjoy your new-found activism!There is a problem with your argument in that you are determining brain size with function. I have not seen a single research report that actually tries to determine what level of consciousness is at ANY level of fetal development. There is a research article that I read a number of years ago in Science News Magazine that was describing a man who was experiencing headaches, but was in all other ways a functional adult human. When they examined his brain, it was less than a quarter of what it should have been and many of the portions were missing and had their functions taken over by other parts of the brain. It was suggested that as much as 1% of the population may have this genetic disorder. Other research has suggested that re-wiring of the brain occurs at all levels of development. I don't think you or anyone else can use brain development reasonably until we understand it ALOT better.

My perspective: life begins at conception. Before conception, you have a sperm and an ovum. They're not going anywhere, they're not going to turn into a newborn infant any time soon. Bang, conception occurs, you have a zygote, that in due course is going to become an embryo, a foetus, and a newborn baby. Drawing the line at conception eliminates all the slippery-slope arguments and provides a solid justification for opposing abortion. You may not agree with it, but you can't very well argue that it's inherently wrong as you can with other such measures (like, oh, random example, we'll say brain activity).

Well, okay, it eliminates all slippery-slope arguments except one: "if a fertilised ovum becomes a baby in the natural course of things, define natural course". Using that, you can argue to scale it back to viability. And then someone else can counter, using the same slippery slope, that even then the "natural course" is that the child will receive essential support from an adult - viability does not mean independence. Or, you could argue to scale the definition forward - "isn't the 'natural course' for a sperm and an ovum to come together through sex?" To which I can only say, yes, but the point of conception divides the debate between abortion and contraception, both of which can be opposed on grounds of "natural course" of life.

My perspective: life begins at conception. Before conception, you have a sperm and an ovum. They're not going anywhere, they're not going to turn into a newborn infant any time soon. Bang, conception occurs, you have a zygote, that in due course is going to become an embryo, a foetus, and a newborn baby. Drawing the line at conception eliminates all the slippery-slope arguments and provides a solid justification for opposing abortion. You may not agree with it, but you can't very well argue that it's inherently wrong as you can with other such measures (like, oh, random example, we'll say brain activity).

Well, okay, it eliminates all slippery-slope arguments except one: "if a fertilised ovum becomes a baby in the natural course of things, define natural course". Using that, you can argue to scale it back to viability. And then someone else can counter, using the same slippery slope, that even then the "natural course" is that the child will receive essential support from an adult - viability does not mean independence. Or, you could argue to scale the definition forward - "isn't the 'natural course' for a sperm and an ovum to come together through sex?" To which I can only say, yes, but the point of conception divides the debate between abortion and contraception, both of which can be opposed on grounds of "natural course" of life.

ahh, excellent. so a united sperm and ova are a human being. therefore, all fertile women are murderers and should be immediately sentenced. for, you see, over half of successful fertilizations are aborted naturally by the woman's body. half the "humans" in the world never grow large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

you most certainly can argue against such a ludicrous position, especially since it means that any single human cell qualifies as human. i'd say that poses about a bazillion legal and philosophical problems, don't you?

the only time slippery slope becomes an issue is when you use the eventuality argument...that the fetus will eventually be one thing or another, that a pre-viable will eventually be viable, et cetera. happily, i don't accept that at all, so your slippery slope doesn't exist in my argument. if a fetus is viable then it's viable; if it's not, it's not. what it might or might not be in the future isn't relavent to what its current status IS. that's the nice part about science, eventuality and actuality aren't considered one and the same. :)

ahh, excellent. so a united sperm and ova are a human being. therefore, all fertile women are murderers and should be immediately sentenced. for, you see, over half of successful fertilizations are aborted naturally by the woman's body. half the "humans" in the world never grow large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

"Natural course", bottle. You even used the word "naturally" yourself, and yet overlooked the entire "natural course" caveat to my position.

you most certainly can argue against such a ludicrous position, especially since it means that any single human cell qualifies as human. i'd say that poses about a bazillion legal and philosophical problems, don't you?

You're putting words into my mouth for the sake of satisfying your own prejudices. I never said "a fertilised ovum is a human", therefore I never implied that any single human cell is human. A fertilised ovum will become an independent human being in "natural course", and my stated position is that this human-to-be has a right to life. That right is subordinate to the woman's right to life (hence abortion for medical reasons is justified), but it is not subordinate to the woman's right to her own body.

happily, i don't accept that at all, so your slippery slope doesn't exist in my argument. if a fetus is viable then it's viable; if it's not, it's not.

A fallacy exists whether you accept it or not, and the slippery slopes inherent in the debate of "where does life begin?" are no exception. Let me clarify something: the whole point of my position is to entirely avoid arguments that are subject to slippery-slope fallacies. I do not oppose abortion because I derive the foetus's right to life from the infant's right to life. I oppose abortion because I believe the foetus has a right, in and of itself, to come to term in natural course without deliberate interference.

Your own position similarly skirts the slippery-slope fallacies, if you'd only see it. I draw the line at conception; you draw it at viability. People respond to my argument by saying "an embryo isn't viable beyond the mother's body", and they could respond to yours by saying "a viable foetus can only survive outside the body in complete dependence". Those are valid criticisms, but susceptible to slippery-slope fallacies. Our positions evade the problem by choosing and defending a specific point.

First stage in a human's life cycle: Embryo.
Last stage in a human's life cycle: Death.

Interference between the two: Murder.

I figure life begins when the mind develops. If you get rid of it before the mind develops, no problem. No suffering, no indignity, no awareness. So, life really doesn't really begin until it's ready to be born.

ahh, excellent. so a united sperm and ova are a human being. therefore, all fertile women are murderers and should be immediately sentenced. for, you see, over half of successful fertilizations are aborted naturally by the woman's body. half the "humans" in the world never grow large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

"Natural course", bottle. You even used the word "naturally" yourself, and yet overlooked the entire "natural course" caveat to my position.


then all humans need to be ruled legally dead right now, since we will all die through the "natural course" of our existence. we are all "undead corpses," and therefore should have the legal status of dead humans.

please read my post more carefully: the "NATURAL COURSE" for over half of fertilizations is to end up in the toilet bowl before "mommy" even knows she's knocked up. if life begins at conception then the "natural course" for humans seems to have suddenly gotten a lot shorter.


you most certainly can argue against such a ludicrous position, especially since it means that any single human cell qualifies as human. i'd say that poses about a bazillion legal and philosophical problems, don't you?

You're putting words into my mouth for the sake of satisfying your own prejudices. I never said "a fertilised ovum is a human", therefore I never implied that any single human cell is human. A fertilised ovum will become an independent human being in "natural course", and my stated position is that this human-to-be has a right to life. That right is subordinate to the woman's right to life (hence abortion for medical reasons is justified), but it is not subordinate to the woman's right to her own body.


yes. you said potentiality=actuality. that's not acceptable to science or reason. so if you claim that a single cell deserves human status then you have to stick with it, and all single cells with human DNA get that status. sorry, kiddo, them's the breaks when you deal with hard fact.

a fertilized ovum will, statistically speaking, not become an independent human in the natural course of events...it will become a fertilized ovum aborted without the female even being aware it existed. less than half will even be noticed by the host female, and then their fate is still not certain. so the "natural course" isn't at all the way you seem to think. but please, continue misunderstanding medical realities, it's not like that's unusual these days.


happily, i don't accept that at all, so your slippery slope doesn't exist in my argument. if a fetus is viable then it's viable; if it's not, it's not.

A fallacy exists whether you accept it or not, and the slippery slopes inherent in the debate of "where does life begin?" are no exception. Let me clarify something: the whole point of my position is to entirely avoid arguments that are subject to slippery-slope fallacies. I do not oppose abortion because I derive the foetus's right to life from the infant's right to life. I oppose abortion because I believe the foetus has a right, in and of itself, to come to term in natural course without deliberate interference.


ahh, so you believe that the fetus has the right to have legal status that supercedes that of the female human, despite the fact that it is NOT a human? interesting. so non-human life has the right to exist, even if a human's wishes and best interests conflict with it...i'll pass that along to all the people with tapeworms who now don't have the right to have them removed.

look, it's either a human or a non-human. pick one. if it's human, then you face the consequences of ruling a single cell to be a human life. if it's not human then the female human has rights that come first, according to our system of morality and law. YOU CANNOT USE POTENTIALITY AS AN ARGUMENT. it's a falacy, just like claiming a pile of lumber and nails is a house. the fertilized egg may or may not one day develop into a human, if all the right forces come together to make it happen. if not, it never will be a human, and it never was.


Your own position similarly skirts the slippery-slope fallacies, if you'd only see it. I draw the line at conception; you draw it at viability. People respond to my argument by saying "an embryo isn't viable beyond the mother's body", and they could respond to yours by saying "a viable foetus can only survive outside the body in complete dependence". Those are valid criticisms, but susceptible to slippery-slope fallacies. Our positions evade the problem by choosing and defending a specific point.

no, you are defining "slippery slope" however you chose and expecting me to sign off on it. there's no slope with me, you just like to think there is because your own position is so woefully exemplifying that phenomenon. read my post more carefully, and if there's something you need clarified please ask.

every forum i go theres always a "God doesn't exist" thread *sighs*

There is one thing that all of you, who are debating with bottle on this, are overlooking. A little statement in the middle of several of her post. This is:

That's not acceptable to science or reason.

Which should be telling you that, she refuses to accept any reasoning except that which validates her own remarks. A total mental shutdown towards any other point of view.

Go on with it, if you chose. For me, I chose to ignore the troll.

I figure life begins when the mind develops. If you get rid of it before the mind develops, no problem. No suffering, no indignity, no awareness. So, life really doesn't really begin until it's ready to be born.Huh? I don't see what scientific or other basis you have to say that a 'mind' doesn't exist until it is ready to be born. What, like does the baby suddenly his an on switch just before going through the birth canal? Wow, then I guess all Caesarean Section babies never reach the level of humanity.

Drawing the line at conception eliminates all the slippery-slope arguments and provides a solid justification for opposing abortion. You may not agree with it, but you can't very well argue that it's inherently wrong as you can with other such measures (like, oh, random example, we'll say brain activity).
I believe this is the best-reasoned argument on this thread. Until we understand more about the developmental process, this is the safest answer. And whenever it comes to ending a life, the safest course is the best course of action.

Drawing the line at conception eliminates all the slippery-slope arguments and provides a solid justification for opposing abortion. You may not agree with it, but you can't very well argue that it's inherently wrong as you can with other such measures (like, oh, random example, we'll say brain activity).
I believe this is the best-reasoned argument on this thread. Until we understand more about the developmental process, this is the safest answer. And whenever it comes to ending a life, the safest course is the best course of action.

but if i understand it properly there is no slippery slope argument with Bottle's definition of a life. It is a life when the brain or central nervous system activates. Not before and not after, so abortions can only be performed before then or after then if the mother's life is in danger.

Whereas if you take the argument you mentioned that it is a life from the moment of conception then this cell is less of a human than any cell in a full grown human's body. Not to mention the fact that there is'nt a specific "moment" of conception or the fact that over half of these foetuses are aborted by the mother's body for reasons we do not yet know.

Drawing the line at conception eliminates all the slippery-slope arguments and provides a solid justification for opposing abortion. You may not agree with it, but you can't very well argue that it's inherently wrong as you can with other such measures (like, oh, random example, we'll say brain activity).
I believe this is the best-reasoned argument on this thread. Until we understand more about the developmental process, this is the safest answer. And whenever it comes to ending a life, the safest course is the best course of action.

but if i understand it properly there is no slippery slope argument with Bottle's definition of a life. It is a life when the brain or central nervous system activates. Not before and not after, so abortions can only be performed before then or after then if the mother's life is in danger.

Whereas if you take the argument you mentioned that it is a life from the moment of conception then this cell is less of a human than any cell in a full grown human's body. Not to mention the fact that there is'nt a specific "moment" of conception or the fact that over half of these foetuses are aborted by the mother's body for reasons we do not yet know.
I get tired of the terms pro-abortion people use sometimes. When the body of a woman rejects a pregnancy, it's not abortion, it's a miscarriage. An abortion is an unnatural act brought about by conscious decision and artificial means.

but if i understand it properly there is no slippery slope argument with Bottle's definition of a life. It is a life when the brain or central nervous system activates. Not before and not after, so abortions can only be performed before then or after then if the mother's life is in danger.
There is a current science advancement slippery slope with Bottle's idea. Currently, science has not determined the total development process of the cn system. It's not a switch - one second it's off, the next it's on. It appears, to current science, as a process over time. At what point is it totally on? Currently, science has not advanced far enough to answer that. We will probably answer it in the coming years, but for now there is no safe answer.

Whereas if you take the argument you mentioned that it is a life from the moment of conception then this cell is less of a human than any cell in a full grown human's body. Why? It is genetically, humanly unique. Why less human? We certainly don't want to start determining humanity by counting the number of cell's it has.

Not to mention the fact that there is'nt a specific "moment" of conception or the fact that over half of these foetuses are aborted by the mother's body for reasons we do not yet know. Umm, actually, there is a specific moment of conception - specifically the point of fertilization. Now, when you say aborted, you need to understand intent. Many fertilized eggs never attach to the womb naturally (currently it is believed less than a third do), many times the womb rejects it because the cells are malformed or it is initially developing poorly (it is suggested that a quarter of all false positives are due to this very natural process). If the body determines that it has all the requirements for personhood, who are we, with our current lack of scientific ability to determine otherwise, to say it isn't? Trust in nature to know what's best. What we are talking about when we say abortion is specifically, the intent of evacuating the womb in a way that is contrary to what nature is doing either by adding hormones to the natural environment or through mechanical/chemical means.

but if i understand it properly there is no slippery slope argument with Bottle's definition of a life. It is a life when the brain or central nervous system activates. Not before and not after, so abortions can only be performed before then or after then if the mother's life is in danger.
There is a current science advancement slippery slope with Bottle's idea. Currently, science has not determined the total development process of the cn system. It's not a switch - one second it's off, the next it's on. It appears, to current science, as a process over time. At what point is it totally on? Currently, science has not advanced far enough to answer that. We will probably answer it in the coming years, but for now there is no safe answer.

Whereas if you take the argument you mentioned that it is a life from the moment of conception then this cell is less of a human than any cell in a full grown human's body. Why? It is genetically, humanly unique. Why less human? We certainly don't want to start determining humanity by counting the number of cell's it has.

Not to mention the fact that there is'nt a specific "moment" of conception or the fact that over half of these foetuses are aborted by the mother's body for reasons we do not yet know. Umm, actually, there is a specific moment of conception - specifically the point of fertilization. Now, when you say aborted, you need to understand intent. Many fertilized eggs never attach to the womb naturally (currently it is believed less than a third do), many times the womb rejects it because the cells are malformed or it is initially developing poorly (it is suggested that a quarter of all false positives are due to this very natural process). If the body determines that it has all the requirements for personhood, who are we, with our current lack of scientific ability to determine otherwise, to say it isn't? Trust in nature to know what's best. What we are talking about when we say abortion is specifically, the intent of evacuating the womb in a way that is contrary to what nature is doing either by adding hormones to the natural environment or through mechanical/chemical means.

cant be bothered to break up my quotes- heres my reply bit by bit.
1)Well then set the limit at when it starts to activate, or if you cant determine that, a week or so before when you think it is.
2)sorry, shouldnt have said less, what i meant was it is similair to a single cell in a fully grown human but less complicated than say an organ (I think Bottle mentioned this earlier) not to say because it's less complicated it's worth less but that why should it be given special consideration?
3)Not that it's particularly relevant but if there is no moment when the nervous system activates why should there be a moment of conception? Sometimes 2 sperm enter the egg and it takes a while to get one of them out, the fusing of the nucleii takes a while too.
Nature doesnt think on it's own. If you're talking about God, thats a different argument and I'm not going to go into that. It's about whether the embryo is a person, not whether nature "knows" better than we do.

I'm not denying that abortions began a long time ago, but science has always existed. Look at it this way... Would you consider architecture part of science? How about physics? Advanced math? Metallurgy? Chemistry? Astronomy? The Egyptians were using all of these upwards of three thousand years ago, to the extent that to this day we don't know how the pyramids were built. That just about kills your "science began 2304 years ago" arguement.


No, I would describe most of your examples in that context as technics, not as science. (I would also exclude maths from the field of science for philosophical reasons, as it is a purely axiomatic system which can be created without ever looking at the world for empirical evidence). Science is methodology, and one of a particular kind.Good point. However, what did Aristotle do that made him different from Pythagoras or Imhotep?Science has always existed, has it? Even longer than humankind? So who was doing science during the cretaceous period then?lol Very funny. You know what I mean. As long as recorded history.The claim that we don't know how the pyramids were built is disingenuous: we know of several different techniques which could have been used to build them, but we do not know exactly which methods were used.Precisely. We know multiple ways that the universe could have formed, too (check all the Big Bang theory's internal conflict in "Debunking the Big Bang 101"). None of them are final. Saying that there are multiple possible solutions to a historical problem does not mean that the problem is solved. History can only happen one way.
I grabbed Aristotle as a handy delineating starting point for science as he signifies a point of unification of many different strands of proto-scientific thought, but I am not asserting that he invented science out of whole cloth.I don't believe that he was very different from scientists before and during his time. In astronomy, for example, the egyptians positioned the pyramids according to where the stars were. In south america, (the Incas I believe) made a huge complex with pyramids positioned in a way that matches perfectly with the orbits of the planets (all nine). Then Aristotle came along and said that the earth was the center of the universe. I'm not saying he wasn't significant, I'm just saying he wasn't exactly the best. There were better scientists before him.
However, the point remains: science did not invent the abortion.Yes, they just made it efficient and marketable. If anyone can find a graph showing how many abortions there were before and after today's medical techniques were invented, I'd appreciate their posting it, alog with where they found it.

*Question: do you call architects scientists? I wouldn't: 'creative engineers that use science', yes, but 'scientists', no.I think so. A lot of the time, architects have to conceive and test new forms of architecture to withstand earthquakes, for example.

You're putting words into my mouth for the sake of satisfying your own
prejudices. I never said "a fertilised ovum is a human", therefore I never
implied that any single human cell is human. A fertilised ovum will become
an independent human being in "natural course", and my stated position is
that this human-to-be has a right to life. That right is subordinate to the
woman's right to life (hence abortion for medical reasons is justified), but it
is not subordinate to the woman's right to her own body.

There's a big problem here though. You either have to say, "it counts as a
life with all the rights therein" or "it doesn't count as a life." Your
position basically says "It sorta kinda counts as a life if the woman wants to
get rid of it for any reason other than she might die, but if I agree with her
reason to get rid of it, then it is not a life."


A fallacy exists whether you accept it or not, and the slippery slopes inherent
in the debate of "where does life begin?" are no exception. Let me clarify
something: the whole point of my position is to entirely avoid arguments that
are subject to slippery-slope fallacies.

If this is your intention, I am afraid you are unsuccessful.

I do not oppose abortion because I derive the foetus's
right to life from the infant's right to life. I oppose abortion because I
believe the foetus has a right, in and of itself, to come to term in natural
course without deliberate interference.

So you have basically said, the fetus has the right to life, oh, except it
doesn't have the *full* right to life. If I said the same thing about a child,
I would be saying - no, you can't strangle it, but if you just forget to feed
it - that's ok because it is not direct interference. Seriously, we treat dogs
better than that. So is it a life, or not?

Your own position similarly skirts the slippery-slope
fallacies, if you'd only see it. I draw the line at conception; you draw it at
viability. People respond to my argument by saying "an embryo isn't viable
beyond the mother's body", and they could respond to yours by saying "a viable
foetus can only survive outside the body in complete dependence". Those are
valid criticisms, but susceptible to slippery-slope fallacies. Our positions
evade the problem by choosing and defending a specific point.

Your position leads to a much worse slippery slope. If the fetus is granted
full rights of life at conception, the woman is immediately completely
responsible for it. If the woman goes to aerobics because she doesn't know
she's pregnant and causes a miscarriage, she has just murdered the fetus by
neglect. If you don't agree with this, then you are not truly giving the fetus
the rights of a life.

cant be bothered to break up my quotes- heres my reply bit by bit.
1)Well then set the limit at when it starts to activate, or if you cant determine that, a week or so before when you think it is.
2)sorry, shouldnt have said less, what i meant was it is similair to a single cell in a fully grown human but less complicated than say an organ (I think Bottle mentioned this earlier) not to say because it's less complicated it's worth less but that why should it be given special consideration?
3)Not that it's particularly relevant but if there is no moment when the nervous system activates why should there be a moment of conception? Sometimes 2 sperm enter the egg and it takes a while to get one of them out, the fusing of the nucleii takes a while too.
Nature doesnt think on it's own. If you're talking about God, thats a different argument and I'm not going to go into that. It's about whether the embryo is a person, not whether nature "knows" better than we do.Answers:
1: You don't quite get the problem of slippery slope theory. If it's a process of development, you can try to continually get before the process, but lack of knowledge leads you back to the 'at the point of conception' argument.
2. Again, Bottle's problem of knowing size versus function kills the argument immediately.
3. Two sperm in one egg leads to miscarriage - this is such an extreme case it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue it (this is the nature ridding itself of deformities does not equal abortion issue). You say that Nature does not think on it's own - but natural processes have been implemented over time that take care of these issues (call it God's will or evolution - doesn't change it). As you said, Personhood is our definition or something we see in nature - and because we cannot determine the point that this special characteristic begins, safety says to go to the only point that we are certain of - the point of fertilization.

Drawing the line at conception eliminates all the slippery-slope arguments and provides a solid justification for opposing abortion. You may not agree with it, but you can't very well argue that it's inherently wrong as you can with other such measures (like, oh, random example, we'll say brain activity).
I believe this is the best-reasoned argument on this thread. Until we understand more about the developmental process, this is the safest answer. And whenever it comes to ending a life, the safest course is the best course of action.

but if i understand it properly there is no slippery slope argument with Bottle's definition of a life. It is a life when the brain or central nervous system activates. Not before and not after, so abortions can only be performed before then or after then if the mother's life is in danger.

Whereas if you take the argument you mentioned that it is a life from the moment of conception then this cell is less of a human than any cell in a full grown human's body. Not to mention the fact that there is'nt a specific "moment" of conception or the fact that over half of these foetuses are aborted by the mother's body for reasons we do not yet know.
I get tired of the terms pro-abortion people use sometimes. When the body of a woman rejects a pregnancy, it's not abortion, it's a miscarriage. An abortion is an unnatural act brought about by conscious decision and artificial means. not according to medical science.

cant be bothered to break up my quotes- heres my reply bit by bit.
1)Well then set the limit at when it starts to activate, or if you cant determine that, a week or so before when you think it is.
2)sorry, shouldnt have said less, what i meant was it is similair to a single cell in a fully grown human but less complicated than say an organ (I think Bottle mentioned this earlier) not to say because it's less complicated it's worth less but that why should it be given special consideration?
3)Not that it's particularly relevant but if there is no moment when the nervous system activates why should there be a moment of conception? Sometimes 2 sperm enter the egg and it takes a while to get one of them out, the fusing of the nucleii takes a while too.
Nature doesnt think on it's own. If you're talking about God, thats a different argument and I'm not going to go into that. It's about whether the embryo is a person, not whether nature "knows" better than we do.Answers:
1: You don't quite get the problem of slippery slope theory. If it's a process of development, you can try to continually get before the process, but lack of knowledge leads you back to the 'at the point of conception' argument.
2. Again, Bottle's problem of knowing size versus function kills the argument immediately.
3. Two sperm in one egg leads to miscarriage - this is such an extreme case it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue it (this is the nature ridding itself of deformities does not equal abortion issue). You say that Nature does not think on it's own - but natural processes have been implemented over time that take care of these issues (call it God's will or evolution - doesn't change it). As you said, Personhood is our definition or something we see in nature - and because we cannot determine the point that this special characteristic begins, safety says to go to the only point that we are certain of - the point of fertilization.

THANK YOU. i am glad somebody can grasp these points, i was starting to wonder if i somehow wasn't speaking English or something.

but if i understand it properly there is no slippery slope argument with Bottle's definition of a life. It is a life when the brain or central nervous system activates. Not before and not after, so abortions can only be performed before then or after then if the mother's life is in danger.
There is a current science advancement slippery slope with Bottle's idea. Currently, science has not determined the total development process of the cn system. It's not a switch - one second it's off, the next it's on. It appears, to current science, as a process over time. At what point is it totally on? Currently, science has not advanced far enough to answer that. We will probably answer it in the coming years, but for now there is no safe answer.


fortunately i don't use nervous system activity to define my principle. it's viability, nothing more. many humans, such as the mentally handicapped, never show full nervous system activation, so i don't think it is right for us to use only CNS function to define legal human status and human rights. i use viability as the cut off; a woman has the right to have a fetus removed from her body at any time, for any reason, but if the fetus is viable every effort should be made to remove it alive and intact. it's not about brain function, though that is part of what defines viability (by necessity...we need a certain level of brain function to live).

I figure life begins when the mind develops. If you get rid of it before the mind develops, no problem. No suffering, no indignity, no awareness. So, life really doesn't really begin until it's ready to be born.Huh? I don't see what scientific or other basis you have to say that a 'mind' doesn't exist until it is ready to be born. What, like does the baby suddenly his an on switch just before going through the birth canal? Wow, then I guess all Caesarean Section babies never reach the level of humanity.
indeed. especially since human infants don't have full brain function for several years AFTER birth. a human infant is less neurologically developed than a 2-year-old chimp, so i don't think we can use cognitive ability alone to define humanity, and we certainly can't claim the mind springs into existence as we pass through the birth canal.

I get tired of the terms pro-abortion people use sometimes.

I get tired of the term pro-abortion being used to describe people who are pro-choice. It's not such a difficult distincion really.

Anti: It should never be done.
Pro: Yeah sure, go all ahead
pro-Choice: I might not like it, but I can see how in some situations someone else can feel the need to do it, so I am not willing to forbid it.

But then, you're probably just using 'pro-abortion' as another word for 'baby-killers' in an attempt to swing people to your side by emotional blackmail.

I get tired of the terms pro-abortion people use sometimes. When the body of a woman rejects a pregnancy, it's not abortion, it's a miscarriage. An abortion is an unnatural act brought about by conscious decision and artificial means.

first of all, very few people are 'pro-abortion'. there might be a few people out there who would say 'everyone should have an abortion, woohoo, go for it.' but they are few and far between. most people who are pro-choice don't see abortion as the end-all be-all or even as the best solution in most cases, they just see it as a choice.

second, the terms miscarriage and spontaneous abortion are synonyms. don't get all angry and think there is a conspiracy just because you don't know medical terms. to abort is to stop something. i could, for instance, abort this post if i wanted to.

sorry about the lack of capitalized letters, the shift key on this keyboard is broken.

sorry about the lack of capitalized letters, the shift key on this keyboard is broken.

Don't you have two?

There is one thing that all of you, who are debating with bottle on this, are overlooking. A little statement in the middle of several of her post. This is:

That's not acceptable to science or reason.

Which should be telling you that, she refuses to accept any reasoning except that which validates her own remarks. A total mental shutdown towards any other point of view.

Go on with it, if you chose. For me, I chose to ignore the troll.

ahh, so science and reason are "trolling," now? interesting.

i don't think i have ever said that something is "unacceptable" to science, except when refering to tactics of debate that simply aren't valid, like circular reasoning or the like. science and reason don't "accept" or "reject" principles, they test them and find them sound or unsound based on the evidence or logic presented.

i am not looking to "validate" my own remarks, i am trying to have a reasoned debate on a serious subject. if somebody can present logical and coherant points then i am delighted...that's why i come here, to have debates and to test my ideas. i have conceded points on numerous threads in my time here, and i have been willing to accept other people's explanations in many areas. the fact that you hold such an odd opinion of me isn't really surprising, given your own biases and your history of debate, but i think you should check into my history a bit more before you try to label me a "troll." you are obviously entitled to your opinion, as anyone is, but i do expect that people give reaons and have something behind their opinions...otherwise there's not much reason for anybody else to care.

also, you obviously don't chose to ignore me, as your post proves ;). have fun, cutes!

I get tired of the terms pro-abortion people use sometimes.

I get tired of the term pro-abortion being used to describe people who are pro-choice. It's not such a difficult distincion really.

Anti: It should never be done.
Pro: Yeah sure, go all ahead
pro-Choice: I might not like it, but I can see how in some situations someone else can feel the need to do it, so I am not willing to forbid it.

But then, you're probably just using 'pro-abortion' as another word for 'baby-killers' in an attempt to swing people to your side by emotional blackmail.

emotive ploys seem to be the refuge of the anti-choice lobby. it's an old trick, and i really wish they'd get some new material.

I get tired of the terms pro-abortion people use sometimes.

I get tired of the term pro-abortion being used to describe people who are pro-choice. It's not such a difficult distincion really.

Anti: It should never be done.
Pro: Yeah sure, go all ahead
pro-Choice: I might not like it, but I can see how in some situations someone else can feel the need to do it, so I am not willing to forbid it.

But then, you're probably just using 'pro-abortion' as another word for 'baby-killers' in an attempt to swing people to your side by emotional blackmail.

I get annoyed with people who can't see past the buzzwords two ideologies (that are often in agreement more than they realize) use and try to actually come to an understanding instead of just saying: My ideology is better than yours! Nanananabooboo!

Very few people are actually Anti-Choice or Pro-Abortion, they are what they say they are, and people don't need to go throwing around false labels in order to demonize the people they see as opponents and make themselves feel superior.

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

1: You don't quite get the problem of slippery slope theory. If it's a process of development, you can try to continually get before the process, but lack of knowledge leads you back to the 'at the point of conception' argument.

and you don't get that the position that places the beginning of a separate human life at conception opens up an equally slippery slope, the logical conclusion of which makes any sexually active woman nothing but a potential baby-carrier. if a fetus is a child with all the same rights as a born child, then most miscarriages can be seen as abuse or neglect and the woman held liable.


Personhood is our definition or something we see in nature - and because we cannot determine the point that this special characteristic begins, safety says to go to the only point that we are certain of - the point of fertilization.

except for the fact that doing so takes away the personal rights of every woman who ever has sex.

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

Yeah I realised this while reading it, and I agree obviously.

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

Yeah I realised this while reading it, and I agree obviously.

Ah...agreement. Not very much of that goes on here. Can you feel the love? :wink:

Very few people are actually Anti-Choice or Pro-Abortion, they are what they say they are, and people don't need to go throwing around false labels in order to demonize the people they see as opponents and make themselves feel superior.


i disagree. i know few people who are pro-abortion, but all pro-life America is anti-choice; they don't want people to have the choice to have an abortion. the label is accurate. they oppose the choice. perhaps it is a bit inflamatory because they aren't anti-ALL-choices, but it's still much more accurate than "pro-abortion." i actually can't think of a single person i know who is in favor of people having abortions or increasing the number of abortions in this country...most people just want to find a way to make abortion unnecessary, because they see it as a tragic reality rather than an ideal solution.

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

Yeah I realised this while reading it, and I agree obviously.

Ah...agreement. Not very much of that goes on here. Can you feel the love? :wink:

Careful, I *am* bisexual you know? :P

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

Until you can prove that they aren't your position isn't any stronger than that of Reynes. Whether or not you count these toward the science body count (and they do have bodies) is irrelevant. Science is where we got gun powder, dynamite, plastic explosives, guided missles, nuclear weapons, etc. All deaths caused by these could be attributed to science. Also, all deaths in experimental medical treatment count toward science. You may want to avoid such drastic exageration in the future. And don't discount other's views just because you don't hold them.

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

Yeah I realised this while reading it, and I agree obviously.

Ah...agreement. Not very much of that goes on here. Can you feel the love? :wink:

Careful, I *am* bisexual you know? :P

*sound of a violin playing*

*rose petals suddenly begin wafting down from the sky*

j/k :P

Sorry, but religion hs a WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY higher body count than science ever will.Okay, I will respond to this: ABORTION. Millions die every year because of this.

I'd say the body count of science will (or already has) surpassed that of religion for this reason alone, though you may consider the victims to be "a blob of tissue" :roll:

hehehe, you still can't show that fetuses are human beings, yet you try this argument. seriously dude, this thread is becoming a real embarassment for you, just cut your losses and run.

Until you can prove that they aren't your position isn't any stronger than that of Reynes. Whether or not you count these toward the science body count (and they do have bodies) is irrelevant. Science is where we got gun powder, dynamite, plastic explosives, guided missles, nuclear weapons, etc. All deaths caused by these could be attributed to science. Also, all deaths in experimental medical treatment count toward science. You may want to avoid such drastic exageration in the future. And don't discount other's views just because you don't hold them.

*sigh* we've been over this. proving a negative, burden of proof on the accuser, yada yada yada. read the thread, please, i don't like having the same conversation 10 times in as many pages.

i disagree. i know few people who are pro-abortion, but all pro-life America is anti-choice;.


Well actually, most of pro-life America IS Pro-choice, just not on abortion. Pro-choice on vouchers, pro-choice on gun control, pro-choice on optional prayer on high school sporting events....the list goes on, meanwhile, many people who are for abortion, are against all of these issues.


Back to the God debate, go to this website, and see if you can still argue against Creation.... http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html

Or this website http://www.advancemeants.com/creation/

I also recomend reading the book The Case for Christ, writing by a once-athiest award winning investigative journalist who relized all of the facts pointing to God

i disagree. i know few people who are pro-abortion, but all pro-life America is anti-choice; they don't want people to have the choice to have an abortion.

Except for when their are compelling medical reasons or sometimes rape, then they would usually give you a choice. The pro-life crowd is mostly just what it says it is. Life is precious to them. There are a few extremists, but that's true of both sides, and they both annoy the hell out of me, but that's another story. :D

the label is accurate. they oppose the choice.

They oppose what they see as the irresponsible choice that causes unwanted, extra-marital pregnancy, and they think that having an abortion takes away the life that was a beautiful gift that came out of that irresponsible choice. They also think that women who have abortions often suffer medical and psychological complications from the procedure. Those, if you believe the underlying premise that legal protection should begin at conception, make for pretty good reasons for opposing abortions in general, while allowing for some exceptions.

I may disagree with them somewhat, but I understand and appreciate their views.

perhaps it is a bit inflamatory because they aren't anti-ALL-choices, but it's still much more accurate than "pro-abortion."

It is indeed inflammatory, and IMO, no more accurate.

i actually can't think of a single person i know who is in favor of people having abortions or increasing the number of abortions in this country...

Not even one? I've met a couple of those.

most people just want to find a way to make abortion unnecessary, because they see it as a tragic reality rather than an ideal solution.

That's largely true of both sides.

i disagree. i know few people who are pro-abortion, but all pro-life America is anti-choice;.


Well actually, most of pro-life America IS Pro-choice, just not on abortion. Pro-choice on vouchers, pro-choice on gun control, pro-choice on optional prayer on high school sporting events....the list goes on, meanwhile, many people who are for abortion, are against all of these issues.



yes, i know, i said that. you just cut out the part of my post where i said it. that's not very nice, you know. :P

*snip for length*

i pretty much agree with you on this stuff, and i don't want to seem like i think all pro-life people are awful or irrational or icky. the only beef i have is the implication that life isn't precious to pro-choice people; my beliefs are based on how precious life is. for me, the precious life in the situation is that of the woman, and i am deeply bothered when people imply that life is not important to me.

i don't know any pro-life people who believe that single-cell organisms are as important as human lives, and most pro-life people i know aren't vegitarians, so clearly it's not about "life" but about HUMAN life. so calling them "pro-life" is no more or less accurate than calling the choice lobby "pro-life." we are both just as dedicated to human life, we simply disagree on what exactly that means.

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

Yeah I realised this while reading it, and I agree obviously.

Ah...agreement. Not very much of that goes on here. Can you feel the love? :wink:

Careful, I *am* bisexual you know? :P

*sound of a violin playing*

*rose petals suddenly begin wafting down from the sky*

j/k :P

Awww...you guys. :oops: If you're of the female sex and as attractive as Bottle we can get together. Unfortunately I'm straight...it's just something I was born with, you know how it is. :wink:

I know that most Pro-Choicers have great respect for life, Bottle. That's why I get annoyed with Pro-Lifers when they try to claim the moral high ground, and that's why I made reference to the belief that life begins at conception, instead of saying 'life' in a more general sense.

DP

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

Ok. What about God would you like to discuss?

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

Ok. What about God would you like to discuss?

Dude! I posted an excellent meditation on faith (er, evidently I can't even spell humility) in another thread so had avoided posting in this one...that and the fact that it had become an abortion debate thread.

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

Ok. What about God would you like to discuss?

Dude! I posted an excellent meditation on faith (er, evidently I can't even spell humility) in another thread so had avoided posting in this one...that and the fact that it had become an abortion debate thread.

Could you link me to it?

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

Ok. What about God would you like to discuss?

Dude! I posted an excellent meditation on faith (er, evidently I can't even spell humility) in another thread so had avoided posting in this one...that and the fact that it had become an abortion debate thread.

Could you link me to it?

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

Ok. What about God would you like to discuss?

Dude! I posted an excellent meditation on faith (er, evidently I can't even spell humility) in another thread so had avoided posting in this one...that and the fact that it had become an abortion debate thread.

Could you link me to it?

I can try:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143265&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

BUMP! This is not an abortion topic, we're discussing this whole "god" thing!

Ok. What about God would you like to discuss?

Dude! I posted an excellent meditation on faith (er, evidently I can't even spell humility) in another thread so had avoided posting in this one...that and the fact that it had become an abortion debate thread.

Could you link me to it?

I can try:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143265&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Yeah, I read that earlier. Good stuff. Dude.

Sorry, you're right, abortion is tangential at best to the question of God's existence. I've forgotten how exactly it morphed into an abortion debate, actually. But, darn it, I just can't resist one last reply to Demipub and Bottle.

Both of you have this notion that something is either human and has rights, or isn't and doesn't (or at least, doesn't have rights that aren't overruled by a human's rights). I entirely disagree. A human adult has a lot of rights. A human minor has fewer rights. A human infant doesn't really have any rights except to be looked after so it can grow up. Now why is it so hard to accept that a human foetus also has certain rights?

Not all rights are equal. No, a human foetus is not a (born) human being; it does not have a right to life that is equal to a born human's. If the mother's life is endangered, by all means, abort. But nevertheless the human foetus does have a right to life - and I say this right is greater than the woman's right to determine what she does with her body.

(And for future reference, Bottle, a slippery slope fallacy is well defined; I'm not redefining a thing. All I've done is claim to have built an argument that avoids most of the lines of argument that usually lead to slippery slopes in abortion debate. Which happens to include the "then why not call all fertilised eggs, that don't end up being born, abortions and wrong?" argument.)

Sorry, you're right, abortion is tangential at best to the question of God's existence. I've forgotten how exactly it morphed into an abortion debate, actually. But, darn it, I just can't resist one last reply to Demipub and Bottle.

Oh well, back to abortion. :D


Both of you have this notion that something is either human and has rights, or isn't and doesn't (or at least, doesn't have rights that aren't overruled by a human's rights). I entirely disagree. A human adult has a lot of rights. A human minor has fewer rights. A human infant doesn't really have any rights except to be looked after so it can grow up. Now why is it so hard to accept that a human foetus also has certain rights?

Well, by your own logic slope there, one would assume that the next step down, namely the foetus, has no rights at all.


Not all rights are equal. No, a human foetus is not a (born) human being; it does not have a right to life that is equal to a born human's. If the mother's life is endangered, by all means, abort. But nevertheless the human foetus does have a right to life - and I say this right is greater than the woman's right to determine what she does with her body.

But what endues the foetus with that right? Is it the mere potential to become a human being?

I'm not knocking you specifically Hakartopia, I just had a general rant that was related. :D

Yeah I realised this while reading it, and I agree obviously.

Ah...agreement. Not very much of that goes on here. Can you feel the love? :wink:

Careful, I *am* bisexual you know? :P

*sound of a violin playing*

*rose petals suddenly begin wafting down from the sky*

j/k :P

Awww...you guys. :oops: If you're of the female sex and as attractive as Bottle we can get together. Unfortunately I'm straight...it's just something I was born with, you know how it is. :wink:

I wouldn't know how attractive Bottle is actually... :oops:

Oh well, back to abortion. :D

Seems so, yes. But look! I can turn it back to religion! <waves hands, and...>

But what endues the foetus with that right? Is it the mere potential to become a human being?

That's one answer. Religious beliefs are another. (See? Told you I could bring it back!) Or "because I said so", which is good enough if you don't agree with me anyway. :) You might as well ask why anyone has any given right... and I can only think of two answers, the absolute morality one (God says so) and the relative morality one (people agree it's so).

Well, by your own logic slope there, one would assume that the next step down, namely the foetus, has no rights at all.

Well, it'd be nice if there were a simple, defined mathematical progression to tell us that, wouldn't there? There isn't; but if you want an example of how the foetus is "lower" in rights than the infant (which isn't required by the argument, it'd just be coincidentally consistent), consider that I've said the foetus' right to life is less than a born human's - including an infant's.

Oh well, back to abortion. :D

Seems so, yes. But look! I can turn it back to religion! <waves hands, and...>

But what endues the foetus with that right? Is it the mere potential to become a human being?

That's one answer. Religious beliefs are another. (See? Told you I could bring it back!) Or "because I said so", which is good enough if you don't agree with me anyway. :)

Witch! Using magic! Definitely a witch! Burn it! BURN IT!!!! :wink:

Well, by your own logic slope there, one would assume that the next step down, namely the foetus, has no rights at all.

Well, it'd be nice if there were a simple, defined mathematical progression to tell us that, wouldn't there? There isn't; but if you want an example of how the foetus is "lower" in rights than the infant (which isn't required by the argument, it'd just be coincidentally consistent), consider that I've said the foetus' right to life is less than a born human's - including an infant's.[/quote]

Well, if the foetus' right to life is indeed less than a born human's and the mother is a born human...I mean, who's right's win?

What if we believe that scientists are right and that there is a God and religion? (That is me, I believe Science is right, but also there is a God.)

Well, if the foetus' right to life is indeed less than a born human's and the mother is a born human...I mean, who's right's win?

The mother's, of course. I'm sure I said that. :? Abortion is justified to save the mother's life - her right to life is greater than the foetus'. (Of course, if the mother dies, so does the foetus, unless it's during childbirth. You could argue that this is in agreement with, the reason for, or an alternative to, this "relative rights" position of mine.)

However, the point remains: science did not invent the abortion.

Yes, they just made it efficient and marketable. If anyone can find a graph showing how many abortions there were before and after today's medical techniques were invented, I'd appreciate their posting it, alog with where they found it.


Shall we just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to draw a definite cause and effect correlation between the two?

However, the point remains: science did not invent the abortion.

Yes, they just made it efficient and marketable. If anyone can find a graph showing how many abortions there were before and after today's medical techniques were invented, I'd appreciate their posting it, alog with where they found it.


Shall we just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to draw a definite cause and effect correlation between the two?
yes, lets! :)

Sorry, you're right, abortion is tangential at best to the question of God's existence. I've forgotten how exactly it morphed into an abortion debate, actually. But, darn it, I just can't resist one last reply to Demipub and Bottle.

Which of course means that I can't resist replying back!

Both of you have this notion that something is either human and has rights, or isn't and doesn't (or at least, doesn't have rights that aren't overruled by a human's rights).

I didn't say that. I said that something is either human and has human rights or isn't and doesn't. A dog in this society is granted certain rights. You can't beat it, neglect it, starve it, etc, but you can have it put to sleep if you want to. This doesn't mean a dog is being given human rights, it just means that there are certain protections we give to dogs. However, the owner of a dog can make the decision to get rid of it, even simply for an inconvenience. ((Don't think I am equating dogs and fetuses, keep reading first)).

I entirely disagree. A human adult has a lot of rights. A human minor has fewer rights.

This is true, but which rights are minors not granted? Minors are still granted the inalienable rights - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. What minors don't have is the right to make medical decisions, or decide whether or not to pollute their bodies, or decide who to marry, etc. This is because society has deemed minors incapable of making these decisions for themselves and appoints their parents or guardians to make the decisions instead. The parents cannot, however, take away the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. For instance, they cannot kill, neglect, maim, keep in the basement, or emotionally abuse their children. In much the same way, a mentally handicapped person may have an appointed guardian because they cannot make decisions for themselves.

Here's the big thing though, they are still considered human with all of the human rights that they are (considered) capable of exercising.

A human infant doesn't really have any rights except to be looked after so it can grow up.

Actually, an infant has all the same rights as a minor, it just is truly incapable of exercising some of them.

Now why is it so hard to accept that a human foetus also has certain rights?

It isn't. But if we don't consider it to have human rights, who is going to decide which ones it does get?

Not all rights are equal. No, a human foetus is not a (born) human being; it does not have a right to life that is equal to a born human's. If the mother's life is endangered, by all means, abort. But nevertheless the human foetus does have a right to life - and I say this right is greater than the woman's right to determine what she does with her body.

Again, if it has the right to life, then a woman who goes to aerobics and causes a miscarriage of the child she did not know she was carrying has committed manslaughter. Otherwise, we have to create a whole new category of life. You have said that a woman can't decide to do away with a fetus, suggesting that it is more important than a dog. Then you say if a woman does something or neglects to do something that causes the fetus to die that's ok as long as she wasn't trying to kill it, making it lower than a dog.

(And for future reference, Bottle, a slippery slope fallacy is well defined; I'm not redefining a thing. All I've done is claim to have built an argument that avoids most of the lines of argument that usually lead to slippery slopes in abortion debate. Which happens to include the "then why not call all fertilised eggs, that don't end up being born, abortions and wrong?" argument.)

But doesn't bypass the idea of exactly what rights do we afford the fetus, why, and who decides?