Pro-Life in Name Only

“That's the point.”

“First, let's try to define "life". I think we can safely say that any life that is, was, or will be "human", as long as it will naturally progress as "human" without unnatural interruption, is "human life", as long as it is "life", or "alive".

To steal a definition from wikipedia, their biological defintion of a "lifeform" is as follows. (see their page for exceptions)

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

Growth
Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

Since young children are incontrovertibly "human lives", and most are incapable of reproduction, I would ignore their requirement of "reproduction".

At the point of fertilization is where we meet all of these requirements, including my aforementioned requirement in the first paragraph, I would say that human life begins at fertilization.

What do you think Mutt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
last edited: 8/01/05 9:36:13 AM”

“PS - I also removed the requirement of "reproduction" because children sometimes die before reaching adulthood, and ... one of the exceptions on wikipedia are mules and impotent humans, yet I think we all can agree they are "lifeforms", so the "reproduction" requirement seems to be more there because they mistakingly associate it with "lifeform", although it's more closely associated with "the life process".
last edited: 8/01/05 9:55:00 AM”

““Explain to me how it is incontrovertible that "human life" begins at conception and not a point before or after?”

I don’t believe this but generally within my faith believes that a life already living is more important than one not born yet. Life begins when the head comes out (Mishna [Oholos 7:6]). This doesn’t mean I agree with abortions on demand. I believe in everyone’s right to choose but I am against abortion for convenience sake.”

“In short, you are the most despicable guy I have ever met. LOL!

Nigal
9:31:44 AM


Yeah, I'm a baddie, alright! Some of the reprehensible things I've done. I punched a clock once or twice. shot my load, and blew many chances. Oh, the humanity! I even got off on an even keel once!

And, in a fit of insanity, I laid a few pets



(to rest)...”

“I heard you beat a guy in the crotch with a limb too, Treebeard.”

“Sarge, your definition is fine for human potential. But what makes a human a human? What is that je ne sais quois? Most people beleive in a "spirit" or some such subjective concept. It's impossible to get away from the spiritual aspect of humanity, in fact. Even if you say your definition is all there is to being human, that's highly representative of a particular spiritual perspective: atheism.”

“Yeah, the balls to the floor incident! Forgot about that, Sarge! lol”

“Mutt - I don't believe I said that my definition is all there is to being human. There are literally billions of other characteristics to humans. Your question wasn't what are all of the characteristics of the average human. Your question is what defines when "human life" begins. To answer that, I gave you the basic requirements to being a human. We can determine that at the point of fertilization, all of those characteristics are first met.

If you want to ask "Do human's have souls?", then that is a different question.

If you're attempting to frame this question in a manner to assist this debate, I'd suggest you would also want to ask "Does a human require a soul to be human?", in the same way that a human can be human without a left hand, a human might be able to be human without a soul.

Regardless, I think your original question was answered. "Human life" begins at the point of fertilization. To give due respect to the following beings, I don't require a soul to be a part of a living tree, living dog, or living amoeba, in order to consider them "living beings", so I'm not about to require a soul to define a "human life".

Do you think we should be able to beat dogs in the same way we beat rugs just because they don't have souls? How about killing unlimited trees on a whim because they don't have souls?

No? Then why would you suggest killing a human being because it might not have a soul?
last edited: 8/01/05 1:18:37 PM”

“If you want to ask "Do human's have souls?", then that is a different question.

No, that's THE question in case you missed my point. that conception is the start of human potential is pretty widely accepted (although I've met someone who believes it's the point that the sperm are on their inevitible path to fertilization - go figure). But human potential does not necessarily equal human life - note society is roughly equally divided on this; unlike, say, the traditional notion of "murder". And the debate doesn't regress to the point at which potential begins. It regresses to the point at which people want to believe that human life begins - and that's a fundamentally spiritual issue - including denying a spiriutal component - as science has nothing objective to say on it either way.

If it was as simple as conception = life, then there wouldn't even be a societal debate. The controversy centers around the spiritual and unknown aspects of the mystery of human life, and in my conservative opinion, that's off limits to government.

It's a messy issue.”

“But human potential does not necessarily equal human life

That's why I defined "human life" and not human potential.

Fertilization is the start of "human life".

It regresses to the point at which people want to believe that human life begins - and that's a fundamentally spiritual issue - including denying a spiriutal component - as science has nothing objective to say on it either way.

I already responded to this above. You are applying a different standard to human life and life of other beings. Human life does not require a soul. That does not mean humans do not have souls, just like humans don't necessarily require a left hand. Maybe you missed that point above.

If it was as simple as conception = life, then there wouldn't even be a societal debate.

It is that simple. It's just that some people insist on ignoring common sense. Instead of debating this based on how many people disagree or agree one way or another, why don't you debate the specific points I made above. I know why you are ignoring them, because it will make you admit certain facts that would hurt your argument.”

“It's funny Mutt, you're arguing this by essentially saying "But you are supposed to believe (this)."

LOL!

Come on Mutt. Don't play stupid with me.

If you want a debate, you've got one. Now, do you want to debate me or yourself?”

“That's why I defined "human life" and not human potential.

That's called "too reductionist". Pefect for an isolate in a scientific vacuum, but woefully inaequate for the social dimension of the definition.

You are applying a different standard to human life and life of other beings.

Red herring.

Human life does not require a soul.

Says who? You? And if I believe otherwise?

why don't you debate the specific points I made above

What points are you referring to? I'm mainly interested in discussing the definition of human life as it varies with religiospiritual perspective and government involvement. If you don't want to discuss that, that's fine. I'm busy anyway.”

“I'm mainly interested in discussing the definition of human life as it varies with religiospiritual perspective and government involvement. - Mutt

Mutt, you're not fooling anybody. You're only interest is trying to reframe your oppositions argument so that it can be easily debated by you.

If your goal is to see if different people define "human life" in different ways, then why are you wasting everyone's time. Gathered by your highly intellectually sounding circumlocution above, I would think such a trivial debate would be above you. Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps we can debate if some people prefer tea over coffee, over some tea and coffee.

The supposed "Red herring" you reference above is ironic, because that is what I was pointing out about your argument. It's a red herring. Maybe that is what you were telling me, that you were arguing using a red herring argument. We agree. (ps - calling somebody else's argument a red herring cannot be a red herring in itself)

Your standard for humans being different than standards for all other living creatures when defining life is moronic. That's not an ad hominem, by the way.

Says who? You? And if I believe otherwise?

The incredibly morphing man, ... Mutt! You are not only trying to reframe my argument, but you make no bones about redefining yourself to make your point. You know as well as anybody on here you don't believe that. Why must you resort to such techniques to argue? Maybe you feel as if your argument is to weak to stand on it's own merit.
last edited: 8/01/05 2:18:15 PM”

“If your goal is to see if different people define "human life" in different ways

It's actually to see why some people think there's only *one* way.

that is what I was pointing out about your argument. It's a red herring.

Not at all - if your definition of human life was all that was relevant then you'd perhaps have a point. If that was all that was relevant, there wouldn't be a debate, like I said already. Obviously, though, social definitions add in a lot more than a purely scientific reductionist pov. And why, in light of that, people insist their view is the only correct view and want the government to establish their view, is the issue that mystifies me.

Your standard for humans being different than standards for all other living creatures when defining life is moronic

Actually, that's argumentum ad hominem wrapped up in a strawman submerged in red herring.

you make no bones about redefining yourself to make your point.

Then you don't know me very well, do you?”

“And why, in light of that, people insist their view is the only correct view and want the government to establish their view, is the issue that mystifies me.

So you are mystified why if people believe abortion or certain embryonic stem-cell research is murder that they would feel compelled to fight for their beliefs? Wow! You're easily mystified, huh? Watch, as I pull a dingleberry out of my a$$. Pretty amazing, huh?

Then you don't know me very well, do you?

So you don't believe in God, yet you believe in the human soul?”

“So you are mystified why if people believe abortion or certain embryonic stem-cell research is murder that they would feel compelled to fight for their beliefs?

Yes, particularly when they want a government ban yet claim to be conservative (You know, less government, adherence to the constitution, etc.) and yet are forced to acknowledge that the societal split on abortion rests largely on religiospiritual beliefs. I find it odd, particularly when abortion could be reduced much more effectively through (comparitively) non-controversial means.”

“How come you always end up attacking people, Sarge?”

“Yes, particularly when they want a government ban yet claim to be conservative (You know, less government, adherence to the constitution, etc.) and yet are forced to acknowledge that the societal split on abortion rests largely on religiospiritual beliefs. I find it odd, particularly when abortion could be reduced much more effectively through (comparitively) non-controversial means.

Maybe you had a mental lapse and forgot about the sanctity of life issue of conservatives. Conservatives don't believe in elliminating government. They believe there are certain things government should be responsible for. Preventing murder of innocent Americans is one of them.

How come you always end up attacking people, Sarge?

I don't always end up attacking people. The premise of your question is misleading.

I've got to go. If you figure out what you believe and want a debate me without changing what you believe mid-stream just to be able to keep up, let me know. I'll check back later.”

“But conservatives have no soul.


Discuss.......please”

“Maybe you had a mental lapse and forgot about the sanctity of life issue of conservatives.

Nice attack, but no. "Sanctity of life" is exactly what is at issue here - for both fetus and mother. So is freedom of religion. So is constitutional representative government. There's a disconnect among religious/anti-choice conservatives between their religiospiritual beliefs, their political beliefs, and their methods of reducing abortion.

I don't always end up attacking people

I don't mind your attacks, but I think most others wouldn't agree with your denial. I could be wrong.

without changing what you believe mid-stream

Where are you getting this?”

“"I don't mind your attacks, but I think most others wouldn't agree with your denial. I could be wrong."

Are you kidding??

Sarge is what one might call "trigger happy".

The only sane and effective method of reducing abortion is to reduce un-wanted pregnancies.
(My appologies to Sarge for the preceeding serious sentence.)”

“The only sane and effective method of reducing abortion is to reduce un-wanted pregnancies.

Amen. That's one disconnect with the religious conservatives.”

“There's a disconnect among religious/anti-choice conservatives between their religiospiritual beliefs, their political beliefs, and their methods of reducing abortion.

What is that disconnect Mutt? Why don't you ask one of these religious/anti-choice conservatives (me) just what they do believe instead of assuming what they believe. There is absolutely NO disconnect in my beliefs on this issue. If you know of something specific, state it.

Where are you getting this?

One day you're posing as an atheist, and the next you claiming that you might believe that people have souls. I asked you before about this, but you ignored it - As a non-Christian Do you think people have souls?

Just who do you think you're fooling here Mutt?

You've obviously no interest in exchanging ideas. You seem more interested in telling "religious/anti-choice conservatives" what they are supposed to be believing than asking what they do believe. Then, you're arguing that point. It's called a straw-man. Your whole argument on here is a straw-man. Just who are you debating with Mutt? Your invisible religious/anti-choice conservative friends?

You are trolling.”

“ the next you claiming that you might believe that people have souls

I assume that refers to today in this thread. If so, Sarge, then please point out exactly where I said *my* belief was such. Or if you prefer, point out where I said I was an atheist. I won't hold my breath for your response to these.

There is absolutely NO disconnect in my beliefs on this issue. If you know of something specific, state it.

You believe life starts at conception, per your words. Do you want a government ban? If not, then I apologize, you don't represent the group of people I was targeting.

You seem more interested in telling "religious/anti-choice conservatives" what they are supposed to be believing than asking what they do believe. Then, you're arguing that point. It's called a straw-man.

No, "telling people what they are supposed to be believing" is not a strawman. A strawman is incorrectly stating a person's position - puposely weak - and proceeding to tear it down. Please, learn the lingo.

Now, what exactly have I told people to believe?”

“well, now, this is more like it.”

“you claiming that you might believe that people have souls - Sarge

please point out exactly where I said *my* belief was such - Mutt

Human life does not require a soul.

Says who? You? And if I believe otherwise - Mutt 3:06:20 PM 8/01/05

You are clearly claiming that you might believe otherwise, just like I said.

You believe life starts at conception, per your words. Do you want a government ban? If not, then I apologize, you don't represent the group of people I was targeting.

I believe that life starts at conception, and I want a government ban. What is the disconnect? Again, be specific. All you've done is restated what I believe. Where is the disconnect?

You seem more interested in telling "religious/anti-choice conservatives" what they are supposed to be believing than asking what they do believe. Then, you're arguing that point. It's called a straw-man. - sarge

No, "telling people what they are supposed to be believing" is not a strawman. - Mutt

I know this. That is why I added "Then, you're arguing that point."

A strawman is incorrectly stating a person's position - puposely weak - and proceeding to tear it down. - That's what I said. Learn English.

Now, what exactly have I told people to believe? - Mutt

Yes, particularly when they want a government ban yet claim to be conservative (You know, less government, adherence to the constitution, etc.) and yet are forced to acknowledge that the societal split on abortion rests largely on religiospiritual beliefs. I find it odd, particularly when abortion could be reduced much more effectively through (comparitively) non-controversial means." - Mutt 3:57:22 PM
8/01/05
last edited: 8/01/05 4:55:38 PM”

“By the way, Mutt.

I haven't forgot about your misinterpretation of fallacies.

I offered a bet that would clear up who was right, but you disappeared.

Shall I refresh your memory?”

“your mothers a strawman”

“crash - Do you want me to send you a copy of that book, or do you have the financial means and the mental desire to get it yourself?”

“yes, sarge, i can afford 7 bucks to go out and buy a book. its high on my "to-read" list
last edited: 8/01/05 5:04:17 PM”

“Cool!

Going to the gym now.

cya

Keep Mutt busy for me ...”

“And if I believe otherwise - Mutt 3:06:20 PM 8/01/05

You are clearly claiming that you might believe otherwise, just like I said.

Didn't you see the "IF"??? *IF* I believe != I believe. You're not making sense, Sarge, but I gotta give you points for having the balls to think that'd work.

A strawman is incorrectly stating a person's position - puposely weak - and proceeding to tear it down. - That's what I said. Learn English.

Why no Sarge, it's right up there for EVERYONE to see. You said "telling "religious/anti-choice conservatives" what they are supposed to be believing". And that's a far cry from the correct definition of strawman - which you seemed to agree with. Sorry, but denying what's clearly visible isn't a defense.

haven't forgot about your misinterpretation of fallacies.

I offered a bet that would clear up who was right, but you disappeared.

Ouch, resorting to dredging up past debates. This isn't your day for debate, Sarge. Well, if I remember right, we both called each other out on a fallacy. You with changing the goalposts (first, I migth add), and then whatever you think I did.”

“the book im reading right now is kind of dry in parts, so its taking me awhile to get thru, plus i have less opportunity to read. i also want to read the last installment of lotr, plus the new testament, plus a book on buddhism i have”

“hey, mutt, im wearing nothing but a smile. how about you?

mutt?


mutt?”

“What book do you have about Buddhism?”

“awakening the buddha within

by lama surya das”

“Didn't you see the "IF"??? *IF* I believe != I believe. You're not making sense, Sarge, but I gotta give you points for having the balls to think that'd work. - Mutt

You said this in response to ... "You are clearly claiming that you might believe otherwise, just like I said".

Mutt, I gotta give you points for reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Just like a true liberal wanna-be.

You said "telling "religious/anti-choice conservatives" what they are supposed to be believing". And that's a far cry from the correct definition of strawman - Mutt

You said this in reference to "You seem more interested in telling "religious/anti-choice conservatives" what they are supposed to be believing than asking what they do believe. Then, you're arguing that point."

Again, Mutt, I gotta give you points for reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Just like a true liberal wanna-be.

Ouch, resorting to dredging up past debates. - Mutt

Um, something you NEVER responded to. Would you like to take the bet? Yes or no?

This isn't your day for debate, Sarge.

Gotta disagree with you again Mutt. Everytime you debate with me you declare yourself the winner. How is it in Mutt's world? Lonely I bet.

Well, if I remember right, we both called each other out on a fallacy.

Yes, but only one of us was willing to take it to an expert for their interpretation. That person was me. You disappeared.

You with changing the goalposts (first, I migth add), and then whatever you think I did.

One thing I certainly don't do Mutt is change the goalposts. I am a very consistent person. My arguments INSIST on keeping the goal posts where they are. That is how I debate. If you see goal posts moving Mutt, it's because you're shifting your position.”

“I have a sleeping Buddha in me? Well that explains the gut! I'm very interested to hear what you think after reading it. I've found some pretty good Buddhist sites on the web but it's hard to know what is traditional Buddhism and what is Hollywood Western Buddhism.”

“I wonder what Buddhism thinks of abortion?

After a short search it appears Buddhism is against it. Hum.
last edited: 8/01/05 5:43:48 PM”

“There is no real traditional Buddhism. Buddhism has been a constantly evolving self-help philosophy from it's very conception. In fact, that's how it was conceived, as a way to change from Christian philosophies that were improperly taught to Buddha is the backwards village from which he came.”

“buddhism was around before christianity, so it was hardly a change from christianity”

“if you want to change the word "christian" to "pagan" then i wouldnt argue the point”

“Crash - Now I'm going to the other (real) gym (as opposed to the one in my basement).

Feel free to occupy Mutt some more with the Buddha and naked garbage. That stuff is golden!

(it seems Nigal is more interested though - isn't that cute?)”

“christianity is also an evolving religion. it has not always been taken as literally as it is now”

“Crash - In an earthly sense, you are correct (man I can't wait until you read that book b/c it will cover this), but really Jews read about Jesus before He came. Buddha was taught Judaism, but his town was very backwards in their teachings. Without a firm grasp of what the Word meant, Buddha was quickly disinfranchised with the whole idea and set off to start his own philosophy, which some people now call a religion, but it's really like a Tony Little thing that has really caught on bigtime.”

“christianity is also an evolving religion. it has not always been taken as literally as it is now

Wow! Um, not according to what is actually in the Bible, which includes the teachings of Christianity.

Anyways, I gotta go. Be back in less than 2 hours.”

“there you go again, sarge, knocking religious traditions older than your own, with equal validity. and yet you still want your religious traditions to be shown respect

tee
pee
cal”

“Wow! Um, not according to what is actually in the Bible, which includes the teachings of Christianity.

by that i mean the way we view it and interpret it”

“knocking religious traditions older than your own, with equal validity.

Buddhism is not older, nor does it have equal validity. How could it be older if Buddha was taught the Old Testament?

The guy who started it started it because he didn't like Judaism. Just like Hubbard started Scientology.”