or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney for President
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney for President - Page 15

post #561 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No. You've didn't understand ( obviously ) either by mistake or design. That's why I answered your question with a question.

Your answer was elusive. Please clarify.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #562 of 693
I best leave before someone realizes what a moron I am for assuming he'd act like an adult.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #563 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Not at all. The reasoning you gave entailed not being fully formed or having a fully developed brain. I wanted clarification on that.

So as long as the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb, it's "human". Correct?

Did I bring up in or out of the womb? If so where? A fetus or zygote isn't fully formed either way. Did you even read the facts in the article I linked to?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #564 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I best leave before someone realizes what a moron I am for assuming he'd act like an adult.

You have a strange definition of " Adult".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #565 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Your answer was elusive. Please clarify.

Look in my post above for the answer to that. That's above my answer to MJ.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #566 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look in my post above for the answer to that.

Your post above is not clear enough. Hence my questions.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #567 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Your post above is not clear enough. Hence my questions.

Well then I guess you didn't read the article huh?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #568 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well then I guess you didn't read the article huh?

My question was regarding a statement you made, not the article.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #569 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

My question was regarding a statement you made, not the article.

Which you didn't read. The article was in support of my statement to clarify. Written by people better versed than myself or you ( or even MJ or SDW ) on the subject. Well I guess if you stick your fingers in your ears and go " LA, la, la! " loud enough it'll go away.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #570 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Which you didn't read.

Actually I did read it, and I wanted clarification, which is why I asked questions.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #571 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Actually I did read it, and I wanted clarification, which is why I asked questions.

I think I've stated that answer. I don't think it makes a difference if a fetus is in or out of the womb. It hasn't finished gestation. Therefore isn't complete and can't be considered the same as a fully formed human. Get it?

MJ seems ( that's all you can get ) to think that a human begins at conception because of a soul. However that's not provable. So in order to let society function we have to write laws on what we can prove. There are many reasons why preventing conception or birth is a good thing not only for the individual but for society as a whole. Does the govenrment have to be involved. No. Is preventing conception or birth the only viable way to let society function ( because you're not going to stop people from having sex )? Yes.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #572 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think I've stated that answer. I don't think it makes a difference if a fetus is in or out of the womb. It hasn't finished gestation. Therefore isn't complete and can't be considered the same as a fully formed human. Get it?

Thank you for finally answering my question in a straightforward manner. The games were really unnecessary.

For the sake of this conversation, can we agree on the Wikipedia definition of the word "fetus"?

According to that definition, the unborn baby is called a fetus up until birth.

In light of that definition, I'd like you to clarify your position: do you believe the fetus is not human if it cannot survive outside the womb? Because babies are born before being carried to full term (premature) and are still very much alive.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #573 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Thank you for finally answering my question in a straightforward manner. The games were really unnecessary.

For the sake of this conversation, can we agree on the Wikipedia definition of the word "fetus"?

According to that definition, the unborn baby is called a fetus up until birth.

In light of that definition, I'd like you to clarify your position: do you believe the fetus is not human if it cannot survive outside the womb? Because babies are born before being carried to full term (premature) and are still very much alive.

Your article starts at
Quote:
Weeks 9 to 16

. What about before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation

Quote:
Humans

Main article: Human fertilization

The term conception commonly refers to fertilisation, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism. 'Conception' is used by some to refer to implantation and is thus a subject of semantic arguments about the beginning of pregnancy, typically in the context of the abortion debate. Gastrulation, which occurs around 16 days after fertilisation, is the point in development when the implanted blastocyst develops three germ layers, the endoderm, the ectoderm and the mesoderm. It is at this point that the genetic code of the father becomes fully involved in the development of the embryo. Until this point in development, twinning is possible. Additionally, interspecies hybrids survive only until gastrulation, and have no chance of development afterward. However this stance is not entirely accepted as some human developmental biology literature refers to the "conceptus" and such medical literature refers to the "products of conception" as the post-implantation embryo and its surrounding membranes.[9] The term "conception" is not usually used in scientific literature because of its variable definition and connotation.

And personally for myself I believe " human " ( that sets us apart from other creatures ) starts at self awareness. That doesn't happen at conception but much later.

Also allow me to copy the link and snippet of the article again for you.

Quote:
Quote:
Does a Fetus Have a Social Identity?

A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another's body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person's existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history.

In earlier times, even infants may not have been valued members of the society yet. Infanticide has been a common practice throughout history as a way to select for healthy, wanted babies, and conserve scarce resources for the rest of the tribe. The human species is estimated to have killed 10 to 15 percent of its born children13. Plus, infant mortality rates from natural causes were so high that babies were often not officially welcomed into the community until months or even years after birth, when their survival was more assured14. Of course, this is not an advocacy of infanticide. I'm simply saying that personhood, or the point at which one becomes an "official" human being, is a value judgment made by society according to social custom and necessity. It is a social construction incapable of empirical proof. Generally, modern industrialized societies find birth to be the most convenient and logical place to assign personhood, because that's where a person starts an independent existence, but perhaps also because of our low infant mortality rates. Even so, babies do not have an established social identity to the same degree as older children or adults, probably because of their still-undeveloped human abilities and potential.





Quote:
Is a Fetus a Human Being Physically?

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren't fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood15.

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Of course, there are striking physical similarities between a fetus and a newborn, such as well-developed hands and feet at a relatively early stage, and the overall structural form. As birth approaches, a fetus looks more and more like a newborn, until there is no significant difference by about 30 weeks gestation. But anti-choicers focus exclusively on these similarities, while ignoring the differences. For example, a hugely popular anti-choice photograph shows the perfectly formed, tiny feet of a 10-week old fetus held gently between someone's thumb and forefinger. There is no sign of the rest of the early fetus, which barely looks human at all. Anti-choicers try not to use pictures of embryos and early fetuses precisely because they look far less human than later ones (when they do, they usually enlarge them to make the embryo or fetus look the same size as a baby). Even the more commonly-used photos of later-term fetuses tend to deliberately shield from view anything that detracts from human-like qualities, such as the placenta or the oddly-shaped torso. (Also, women and their uteruses are completely erased from all such pictures.)16





http://www.abortionaccess.info/fetusperson.htm

The part relevant to your line of questioning is highlighted in red for your convenience.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #574 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

MJ seems ( that's all you can get ) to think that a human begins at conception because of a soul. However that's not provable.

So now who is putting words in who's mouth?!

What I have said quite clearly is the following:

1. I believe human life begins at conceptions. I provided a quick handful of scientific facts in support of that belief. I know some disagree with this.

2. I also believe there is something we call the "soul" which is more difficult to "prove" from a physical, scientific perspective but that doesn't make it any less real.

3. I also believe that a human does have a soul from the moment of conception.

All that said, the basis of my belief in the humanness is not strictly or exclusively based on the unprovable soul aspect. The thing living inside of a womb is human in many of the other aspects that we can measure objectively and scientifically. And since many would like to limit the discussion to only the scientific (which is pretty simplistic in my opinion)...we can start with the objective facts about this living being's humanity and regard anyone who declares human life to begin at some point after conception to simply be engaging in subjective, possibly arbitrary opinion making absolutely no different than someone suggesting the existence of a soul.

Based on all of this, I believe, it would behoove us as human beings who care about human life to be extremely careful and err on the side of caution in what actions are allowed to be taken against this living thing as we continue to investigation and debate and discovery of what is and is not a human being and when human life begins.

I think it would be safe to say, objectively, that the earliest boundary for the start of human life would be conception. Anything after that is a subjective opinion that, I believe, is only tenuously supportable by facts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #575 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And personally for myself I believe " human " ( that sets us apart from other creatures ) starts at self awareness. That doesn't happen at conception but much later.

How can you possibly know that? Is that provable? How is what your saying any different from the concept of a "soul?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #576 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How can you possibly know that? Is that provable? How is what your saying any different from the concept of a "soul?"

I think it's safe to say if a brain isn't formed and developed enough for cognitive thought there's no self awareness.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #577 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So now who is putting words in who's mouth?!

What I have said quite clearly is the following:

1. I believe human life begins at conceptions. I provided a quick handful of scientific facts in support of that belief. I know some disagree with this.

2. I also believe there is something we call the "soul" which is more difficult to "prove" from a physical, scientific perspective but that doesn't make it any less real.

3. I also believe that a human does have a soul from the moment of conception.

All that said, the basis of my belief in the humanness is not strictly or exclusively based on the unprovable soul aspect. The thing living inside of a womb is human in many of the other aspects that we can measure objectively and scientifically. And since many would like to limit the discussion to only the scientific (which is pretty simplistic in my opinion)...we can start with the objective facts about this living being's humanity and regard anyone who declares human life to begin at some point after conception to simply be engaging in subjective, possibly arbitrary opinion making absolutely no different than someone suggesting the existence of a soul.

Based on all of this, I believe, it would behoove us as human beings who care about human life to be extremely careful and err on the side of caution in what actions are allowed to be taken against this living thing as we continue to investigation and debate and discovery of what is and is not a human being and when human life begins.

I think it would be safe to say, objectively, that the earliest boundary for the start of human life would be conception. Anything after that is a subjective opinion that, I believe, is only tenuously supportable by facts.

Since I joined the conversation late could you supply on which page did you list your scientific facts so I can be clear on what you're talking about?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #578 of 693
I say we err on the side of caution and accept only the aspects of the argument that are provable, especially the well-being of the woman.

It's a horrible attack on a person to forego the woman's opinion on the matter for something unknown and contested within both the scientific and philosoreligious environment.
post #579 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I say we err on the side of caution and accept only the aspects of the argument that are provable, especially the well-being of the woman.

That sounds reasonable to me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #580 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I say we err on the side of caution and accept only the aspects of the argument that are provable, especially the well-being of the woman.

It's a horrible attack on a person to forego the woman's opinion on the matter for something unknown and contested by science.

The fact is that we can prove that the living being within the womb is human in all of the aspects we can measure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #581 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think it's safe to say if a brain isn't formed and developed enough for cognitive thought there's no self awareness.

OK. Now we're actually getting somewhere.

For you the earliest point would be some brain activity that might suggest the possibility of "self awareness." Is that right?

Since we have no real way to scientifically measure someone's "self awareness" and we want to keep the discussion in the realm of the scientifically measurable, then it seems reasonable to say that as early as 30-40 days of development (1st 3rd to 1st half of the 1st trimester) this might be a possibility since this is the beginning of the brain as we understand it now.

Is that fair to say?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #582 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Now we're actually getting somewhere.

For you the earliest point would be some brain activity that might suggest the possibility of "self awareness." Is that right?

Since we have no real way to scientifically measure someone's "self awareness" and we want to keep the discussion in the realm of the scientifically measurable, then it seems reasonable to say that as early as 30-40 days of development (1st 3rd to 1st half of the 1st trimester) this might be a possibility since this is the beginning of the brain as we understand it now.

Is that fair to say?

Quote:
then it seems reasonable to say that as early as 30-40 days of development (1st 3rd to 1st half of the 1st trimester) this might be a possibility since this is the beginning of the brain as we understand it now.

And your information on this comes from where? Link please. And just because the brain is forming doesn't mean it has cognitive thought. As per the article I've already supplied.

As you can see from this Wiki listing the brain isn't fully formed by week 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_baby

Also :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iousness-arise

Quote:
The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep.

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. Called active and quiet sleep, these states can be distinguished using electroencephalography. Their different EEG signatures go hand in hand with distinct behaviors: breathing, swallowing, licking, and moving the eyes but no large-scale body movements in active sleep; no breathing, no eye movements and tonic muscle activity in quiet sleep. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself: adenosine; two steroidal anesthetics, allopregnanolone and pregnanolone; one potent hormone, prostaglandin D2; and others. The role of the placenta in maintaining sedation is revealed when the umbilical cord is closed off while keeping the fetus adequately supplied with oxygen. The lamb embryo now moves and breathes continuously. From all this evidence, neonatologists conclude that the fetus is asleep while its brain matures.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #583 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And your information on this comes from where? Link please. And just because the brain is forming doesn't mean it has cognitive thought. As per the article I've already supplied.

As you can see from this Wiki listing the brain isn't fully formed by week 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_baby

Also :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iousness-arise

So the earliest, for you, would be 8-9 weeks (54-63 days)...still within 1st trimester?

Or, instead of me guessing, can you put a time frame on when you consider this living being to be a human?

Also is it only "self awareness"? How would you determine this "self awareness"? Are there other characteristics that, in your opinion, make (or do not make) this living being human?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #584 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So the earliest, for you, would be 8-9 weeks (54-63 days)...still within 1st trimester?

Or, instead of me guessing, can you put a time frame on when you consider this living being to be a human?

Also is it only "self awareness"? How would you determine this "self awareness"? Are there other characteristics that, in your opinion, make (or do not make) this living being human?

Ok. Some evidence suggests that self awareness isn't fully in place even after the child is born. That it goes on developing for 2 to 3 years. So given that maybe we should look at when the human brain is formed enough for cognitive thought as a better measurment of what's human and what's still developing into human. I should have said this on the onset ( my bad ) but there you are.

The Scientific American article again :
Quote:
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care.

So 3rd trimester would seem to be a good place to consider. It is difficult to pin down exactly where and I'm sure it differs between individuals. Hence the big debate. However you can be sure that it's not developed enough for cognitive human type thought before the brain is developed enough to be capable of it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #585 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Some evidence suggests that self awareness isn't fully in place even after the child is born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So 3rd trimester would seem to be a good place to consider.

So, for you, this living being is not really human until at least the 3rd trimester (beginning?) of gestation and, possibly, not even until after birth?


Quote:
Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

This statement suggest that at this point only the potential for self awareness exists. Is that how you read that also?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #586 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So, for you, this living being is not really human until at least the 3rd trimester (beginning?) of gestation and, possibly, not even until after birth?




This statement suggest that at this point only the potential for self awareness exists. Is that how you read that also?

As to your first question I was mearly pointing out that selfawareness might not be the best place to pin this on so we'll go with cognitive thought. Sorry to change the goal posts but I didn't realize that selfawareness still develops to a great degree after birth. I'm not a doctor after all. Hence the references. The same should apply to you.

As to your second statement I'd say yes. However there we go with potential again.

Now let me ask a question. When do you think that the human fetus has thought that sets itself apart from other animals and why? Also references pertaining to this please.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #587 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As to your first question I was mearly pointing out that selfawareness might not be the best place to pin this on so we'll go with cognitive thought. Sorry to change the goal posts but I didn't realize that selfawareness still develops to a great degree after birth.

That's fine. No need to apologize. So, for you, the first indications of cognitive thought. Fair enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When do you think that the human fetus has thought that sets itself apart from other animals and why?

I'd say that it's in about the time frames you've suggested for cognitive thought. I'm not prepared to dispute or refute that claim and it seems reasonable enough.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #588 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's fine. No need to apologize. So, for you, the first indications of cognitive thought. Fair enough.




I'd say that it's in about the time frames you've suggested for cognitive thought. I'm not prepared to dispute or refute that claim and it seems reasonable enough.

That exchange was nice. I finally feel like we're really talking. There's a huge debate on this subject and it's because it's so difficult to pin certain things down. But as I've said to let society function you have to start somewhere.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #589 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

There's a huge debate on this subject and it's because it's so difficult to pin certain things down.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But as I've said to let society function you have to start somewhere.

Agreed. The debate is about where to start and there is a wide range of opinion.

For example, we have discussed some facts here...such as when brain activity happens and when cognitive thought is possible. Those are facts as best as we know them currently. We also know that the living being has human DNA from the point of conception and that, uninterrupted, will grow and mature into what we presently call a human being. These are all facts.

The opinions are about at what point along this timeline this living entity becomes a person worthy of protection under the law.

These are important questions. A women's control over her body is also an important consideration. Reasons for ending of this life should also be a part of the dialogue. What has caused this new life to begin should also be a part of the discussion.

The problem is when people want to terminate the debate by trying to declare opinion as fact and unilaterally declare certain opinions or facts or factors irrelevant or off limits to the discussion.

I believe that since we are talking about human life here and that, I presume, we all value human life...that this should be a serious and full debate continuing until we get more facts and more agreement and not simply end the debate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #590 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Agreed.




Agreed. The debate is about where to start and there is a wide range of opinion.

For example, we have discussed some facts here...such as when brain activity happens and when cognitive thought is possible. Those are facts as best as we know them currently. We also know that the living being has human DNA from the point of conception and that, uninterrupted, will grow and mature into what we presently call a human being. These are all facts.

The opinions are about at what point along this timeline this living entity becomes a person worthy of protection under the law.

These are important questions. A women's control over her body is also an important consideration. Reasons for ending of this life should also be a part of the dialogue. What has caused this new life to begin should also be a part of the discussion.

The problem is when people want to terminate the debate by trying to declare opinion as fact and unilaterally declare certain opinions or facts or factors irrelevant or off limits to the discussion.

I believe that since we are talking about human life here and that, I presume, we all value human life...that this should be a serious and full debate continuing until we get more facts and more agreement and not simply end the debate.

That seems totally reasonable.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #591 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm sorry but I really can't help you with your obvious blind spot.\

Is asking you to explain your position unreasonable? You've done this for years, yet I'm not sure why. Do you think it's funny? You make a statement. Someone asks you to clarify. Instead of doing so, you claim you were perfectly clear and that it's not your fault the other person doesn't "get it."


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think I've stated that answer. I don't think it makes a difference if a fetus is in or out of the womb. It hasn't finished gestation. Therefore isn't complete and can't be considered the same as a fully formed human. Get it?

That's a little better. However, two questions:

1) Is the fetus a fully formed human at, say, 1 day before birth? 5 days? 2 weeks? 10 weeks? I ask because a premature birth can easily produce a child who can live easily after 28 weeks, or even earlier.

2) It seems to me that you're making the above argument to support abortion at any time. Yes?

Quote:

MJ seems ( that's all you can get ) to think that a human begins at conception because of a soul. However that's not provable. So in order to let society function we have to write laws on what we can prove.

Agreed.

Quote:
There are many reasons why preventing conception or birth is a good thing not only for the individual but for society as a whole.

I'm inclined to agree, but don't use weasel terms like "preventing birth." You mean abortion. Just say it. Secondly, should benefit to society as a whole be the only criteria for deciding matters like this? Clearly many liberals think so. If it's good for everyone, it should be mandated.

Quote:

Does the govenrment have to be involved. No.

But you just said it did.

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac

So in order to let society function we have to write laws on what we can prove.

We need to have a basic legal agreement on when pregnancies can be legally terminated. Therefore, we need government involvement in some way.

Quote:

Is preventing conception or birth the only viable way to let society function ( because you're not going to stop people from having sex )? Yes.

(emphasis added)

Really? Wow. So you are saying that society can't function if abortion and contraception are somehow made illegal?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #592 of 693
Thread Starter 
Romney wins Michigan and Arizona. Looks like The Santorum™ has gone, eh, dry.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #593 of 693
There could be no other outcome. It was planned long before now.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #594 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There could be no other outcome. It was planned long before now.

What does that mean?

Also, with regard to Paul: Have you been following the stories on he and Romney having some kind of secret (or just unspoken) agreement? I do find that interesting, because if you notice Paul and Romney have not gone after each other at all (debates or advertising). I've also heard that they've formed a friendship, if nothing else.

My thinking is Romney and Paul have come to an understanding: I think both agree Romney is the likely nominee. I think they've agreed not to go after each other, instead focusing on Santorum and Gingrich. Then, Romney has promised Paul that he will have influence in terms of the platform and perhaps, an official presence in the administration if Romney wins the general. What do you think?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #595 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What does that mean?

Mitt Romney has long been the pick of the Republican establishment, and they will do whatever it takes to ensure he receives the nomination.

Quote:
Also, with regard to Paul: Have you been following the stories on he and Romney having some kind of secret (or just unspoken) agreement? I do find that interesting, because if you notice Paul and Romney have not gone after each other at all (debates or advertising). I've also heard that they've formed a friendship, if nothing else.

My thinking is Romney and Paul have come to an understanding: I think both agree Romney is the likely nominee. I think they've agreed not to go after each other, instead focusing on Santorum and Gingrich. Then, Romney has promised Paul that he will have influence in terms of the platform and perhaps, an official presence in the administration if Romney wins the general. What do you think?

I would be surprised if that were really the case. Ron Paul is no fool and has always known his chances were slim. His message, however, has gained much more traction this time around than in 2008 because it's becoming more apparent that he has been right all along.

But I seriously doubt he would accept a role in another Administration. It wouldn't help get his message out any more effectively. I could be wrong, but in 2008 he endorsed a third party candidate and I think he'll do something similar this time.

Furthermore, when he is outright asked if he has a deal with the Romney Campaign and he says "no, never" I believe him. http://youtu.be/8lExWb0i4Fw

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #596 of 693
Santorum damaged himself with the snob comment, trying too hard to grab blue collar workers.

Romney will probably be the pick. And will then replay the McCain loss at the polls.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #597 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Santorum damaged himself with the snob comment, trying too hard to grab blue collar workers.

Actually, I think I get what he was trying to say there, he just used the wrong word.

College isn't for everyone, and people can be very successful in life without a college degree.

Quote:
Romney will probably be the pick. And will then replay the McCain loss at the polls.

Agreed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #598 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Actually, I think I get what he was trying to say there, he just used the wrong word.

College isn't for everyone, and people can be very successful in life without a college degree.

But President Obama never said college was for everyone.

Santorum was again attempting to run against a straw man--like the vast majority of Republicans have been doing since Obama took office.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #599 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But President Obama never said college was for everyone.

Santorum was again attempting to run against a straw man--like the vast majority of Republicans have been doing since Obama took office.

I agree that Santorum was offside here. He was trying hard to appeal to the working class in Michigan (his only hope to beat Romney) and figured it might be a wedge issue. And he overplayed it with his wording and it backfired. But come on BR, campaigning against straw men is practiced on both sides of the aisle.

National security policy was a Democratic wedge until Obama became a warrior (and now it's all fine.)

Theocracy is a Democratic wedge today - and no Republican even comes close to advocating it.

Libertarianism is often used as a Democratic wedge even though no Republican candidate will privatize the public school or highway systems.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #600 of 693
Republicans don't have the opponent they want, so they have been running against an opponent that does not exist. This isn't just about wedge issues. This is an absolute false equivalence if you claim both sides are the same on this.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney for President