a biologist's perspective-- life doesn't "begin at conception...."

[mike_c]

The belief that "life begins at conception" suggests that what precedes conception is somehow not alive. That's a ludicrous proposition. The antecedents of conception-- the gametes: spermatozoa and ova-- are every bit as living as the parents that produced them and the zygote that results from their fusion. Each conception is connected by an unbroken chain of life from the present to the distant past, when some protocell first replictated itself and produced "offspring." The question of when life begins is obfuscation, plain and simple. It's ignorant. The beginning of life has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction-- that's simply the continuance of life, not it's beginning.

The question of whether consciousness begins at conception is equally ludicrous. At conception, an individual is just about as complex as a single celled algal cell floating in pondwater. Somewhat less so, actually, because it lacks the means to nourish itself. But to suggest that a human zygote is a conscious entity is to suggest that every single organism on the face of the earth has an equal measure of consciousness, and that we commit murder a million times over whenever we wash our hands.

Conscious individuality requires a functioning, complex nervous system. Undoubtedly normal human babies are self-aware by the time they're born, but even then, their nervous systems are incomplete. Consciousness must arise sometime during the middle portion of gestation, but not until after a great deal of nervous system growth has occurred. Self awareness must take even longer.

And then there's the nature of "personhood." A person is not just a bundle of cells that are conscious of input from their surroundings-- the most primitive slug shares that trait-- and self-awareness alone cannot raise a human foetus above the level of most invertebrate lives either. A person is the sum of a life's experiences written on memory. Even if it begins before birth, and there is ample evidence that it does, that memory-- and the development of personhood-- likewise cannot commence until nervous system development is well advanced. No zygote, or blastocyst, or otherwise poorly developed embryo can possibly begin that process.

on edit-- grammar and spelling.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Neocons think life begins at conception and ends at birth

[BrklynLiberal]

You are right. They stop supporting the rights of the child right after

it is born.

[grannylib]

85. Yes, until that person finds him/herself in a position like Terri Schiavo,

then (if the person is white anyway, and has money to be kept "alive") then they support "life." What fucking hypocrisy.
Where were the protesters around Sun Hudson's hospital? Where was the outrage at the family members who were kept from the bedsides of THEIR loved ones by the commotion that the bused-in 'right to lifers' caused?
Fuckers.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

110. Absolutely

If they were really so "pro-life," they wouldn't start wars, bomb abortion clinics, or do any other things such as those.

edited for grammar

[shadowknows69]

2. Does this mean

that all my sperm can vote democratic?

[havocmom]

4. By all means, stand up and be counted!

:evilgrin:

[mike_c]

6. only if you can get them into a voting booth....

Bring a tissue, and probably bail money, too.

[StClone]

8. Yes, I think it swamps the defenders of life

To defend every little cell down to that murder you committed when you scraped your elbow.

[H2O Man]

13. If a

dick dripping can become president, I don't see why not.

[TahitiNut]

18. Pulling that lever is what I'd call "motility"!!

:evilgrin:

[Cronus Protagonist]

121. Well, all my sperm were alive when they left my body too

And if any of them voted Republican, I'm disinheriting them.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[mike_c]

128. if your children vote republican, are you half responsible...?

:evilgrin:

[Cronus Protagonist]

130. At least half, maybe more

If you brought them up right, there's no way they could be heartless greedy selfish cheap-labor capitalists.

:evilgrin:

[jim3775]

3. From a physics perspective

life never really begins and ends, energy just gets transfered from one state to another.

[StClone]

17. True. Proof of afterlife is not there.

Religion is thus neutered of importance in most cases and life is what it is...not a precursor to the afterlife but just for the living. There is no transfer of energy to a invisible undetectable dimension, upon death it is just redistributed in our existing Universe.

[teknomanzer]

36. A different perspective on reincarnation...

I'll become several different things after death... Taking these thoughts to the furthest you begin to understand that you are not the same being you were 15 years ago most of your matter has been exchanged... so why to you still think you are the same? What is with the pretense... are you that stuck in your illusion of an indivisable self? Take the red pill damn it!

[StClone]

46. Changing is what life is, that doesn't support afterlife, though

Fixing damage, healing, building, growing, exchanging molecules and sloughing off is what life does to keep its organizational hold against entropy. There is nothing in its workings to exclude the afterlife but there is nothing to support it, either.

[mike_c]

20. there's a similar biological perspective...

...that suggests living organisms are just the packaging used to propogate genetic information.

[idiosyncratic]

32. I think the author Michael Pollen holds that belief and writes about it

I heard and interview with him and it was fascinating to think that our farming of wheat was the goal of the wheat genes to propagate themselves . . . or something like that . . .

[Az]

29. LIfe is a special state of matter and energy

Such states can be started and destroyed. Transference to a different state of energy or structure can eradicate the state necissary to be considered life.

[mike_c]

33. what special state?

From a thermodynamic perspective, life is just a highly organized system that maintains its organization by creating a lot of waste heat, and fairly inefficiently at that. There's no "special state" involved, just exploitation of thermodynamics to maintain complex organization. At death, that organization breaks down because it's no longer maintained, i.e. from a thermodynamic perspective, equilibrium = death.

[Az]

47. I think you just described the special state

I am not talking about gaseous, solid, liquid, plasma. It is as you say a complex organization. When that order breaks down the conditions we refer to as life halt.

[Pepperbelly]

49. what a crock of shit ...

Who the hell looks at the universe from a thermodynamic p.o.v? Go eat a rock then and tell me life is no special state. Or better yet, as a living person, defer to what's good for the pocket of air where you currently exist. You enjoy no special state than the pocket of air.

Sometimes we can get so wrapped up with abstractions that the real world becomes illusory. I recommend that you go out and get drunk or something. If your work requires you to assume a t.d. paradigm, then whatever. But actually adopting it as a lens for relating to the world is downright silly, regardless of how scientifically valid a rationalization may be.

[StClone]

51. Ah there is no special conditions in life

No hyper-dimensions, super molecularity, or extra-dynamics just basic physics and Chemistry. Just that it develops a conscious state which may appear a lot more complicated than it is (though it may well be pretty special). Centricity may be part of the higher forms of life thought patterns though.

[Pepperbelly]

53. and you are certain of this exactly how? nt

[StClone]

63. Medicine is an example

Understanding the human body in order to preserve life is nothing more than a continuing Scientific inquiring into the Biological activities of Physics and Chemistry. If those sciences failed us we wouldn't have medicine.

[Pepperbelly]

66. but you have a real problem in logic to overcome in your position...

If all of the dogs you have ever seen were bown, that does not eliminate the possibility of white dogs, black dogs, red dogs, yellow dogs, gray dogs, spotted dogs, or pink dogs, for that matter.

And I take exception to nothing in your previous post. It is all, AFAIK, true.

[mike_c]

77. but likewise, the mere possiblity of things outside our experience...

...is not evidence for their existence. I have never seen purple paisley dogs, but while that leaves open the possiblity of their existence ourside my awareness, what we understand about the genetics of canine coat color suggests that possibility is vanishingly remote.

[Pepperbelly]

80. see this post to ...

kinda isolate the discussion and not spend bandwidth frivolously with my contrarianism. I explain where I am coming from here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951606&mesg_id=4952159

[mike_c]

82. nice post, especially that last sentence....

Which of course, then leaves the question regarding the origin of the abstraction.

I WILL refrain from going over to that thread and causing trouble.
I WILL refrain from going over to that thread and causing trouble.
I WILL refrain from going over to that thread and causing trouble.
I WILL refrain from going over to that thread and causing trouble.
I WILL refrain from going over to that thread and causing trouble.
I WILL refrain.... :)

[Pepperbelly]

87. no way to cause trouble because it would be like ...

the American atheist at an Irish meeting in the North. When asked if he was a Protestant or a Catholic, he replied he was an atheist. One old lady was not to be denied. "Is it a Protestent God or a Catholic God that you don't believe in?"

Shit, none of us know when we get to that close an examination. The physicists that work in that teeny-tiny world will confess happily to that.

Who-the-fuck-knows is probably the most functional attitude to take.

[dretceterini]

137. You are mistaken...

George Bush, being God incarnate, knows everything. He has even given me government financing for my new Pie shop, Jesus Crust!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

113. YES! The First Law of Thermodynamics!

"Energy is never lost, only transferred from a system to its surroundings in the forms of heat and/or work."

:D :D :D

[FM Arouet666]

134. A nice way to look at things, but not correct.

Life really ends, the highly organized state which we call life ends when the organism dies. Energy is transfered to another state, ultimately dissipating as heat.

[ugarte]

5. Link? Or did you write this?

Very good.

[mike_c]

7. I wrote it....

eom

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Well written. Thank you.

[BobbyinPortland]

9. veddy interesting

I like the way that biologist thinks. I think he might be using a few more brain cells than others that speak about the same subject.

[DU me]

90. Very True!

Wouldn't it be neat if when somebody yelled in your face "BUT ITS A BABY!!!!" You could memorize some of this and respond in a calm matter of fact tone going on and on for about 2 minutes or more and then just look at them and wait for a response?

[BobbyinPortland]

147. That's an AWESOME idea.

I think I'll copy and save for later reference.

[mandyky]

10. National Geographic Channel had a show The Womb

on a month or so ago, scientists refer to early embryos and fetuses as parasitic. Until a fetus is viable, able to live on it's own, it is a parasite, a benign one in most cases, but a parasite nonetheless.

While some form of life does start at conception, it is not human life.

[intheflow]

11. OMG! Are you using SCIENCE again?

When will you libs learn that the only truth is written in the Bible!
...
...
...
What do you mean "Life begins at conception" isn't written in the Bible?

:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

14. (slaps forehead)-- I just can't help myself....

:evilgrin:

[StClone]

24. I prefer my Science God

[intheflow]

28. I totally want one of those for my car!

Preferably eating a fish. :)

[StClone]

38. I'd like this as a bumper sticker.

""

[intheflow]

44. Are you suggesting Jesus eat the FSM?

Or just spaghetti? I did hear that Jesus liked Italian food.



...or maybe that was just papal propaganda. ;)

[StClone]

57. That the other Religions

Have FSM at their soul. FSM created them!

[intheflow]

65. I like it!

:rofl:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. So then

every sperm really IS sacred?

[mike_c]

16. of course!

[Oeditpus Rex]

39. 'Let the pagans spill theirs

o'er mountain, hill, and plain
God shall strike them down for
each sperm that's spilt in vain"

Every Sperm is Sacred (Real Audio file)

(Edited to fix link.)

[Sin]

71. Even better then just audio :)

Make sure ya dont watch this one at work or when the kids are around hehe:) http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/265798

[TahitiNut]

15. For ages it was believed that a person's soul came with their first breath

Inspiration. Spiritus. Holy Spirit. Divine inspiration.

This age-old religious perspective, however, no longer serves the agenda of imposing one's will on another person -- so they invent shit.

[eallen]

19. There is a real sense in which consciousness begins at birth.

The fetus's blood carries too little oxygen to support consciousness. That's because it borrows oxygen from the mother's blood, across the placenta. It's only when the newborn baby first starts breathing with its own lungs that the brain really "wakes up."

[mike_c]

27. I'm not sure how true this is....

As a biologist, I define consciousness as "awareness of the environment in relation to self." Well advanced foetuses interact with their environment, especially their own internal state, e.g. they stretch, move, etc. That MIGHT be just reflexive, but it might also reflect consciousness.

[eallen]

43. There are different levels of consciousness.

[ultraist]

125. True. At 30 weeks, fetuses can hear

By about 30 weeks old, fetuses can hear and respond to sound, as well as touch. Of course, the level of conciousness is very rudimentary at that stage and the brain continues to grow throughout the first few years of life. (It continues to develop thoughout childhood).

Fetuses can also respond to light:

http://www.locateadoc.com/articles.cfm/1047/1140
DETECTS FETAL BRAIN RESPONSE TO LIGHT
May Help Prevent Brain Damage

For years, doctors who work in maternal and fetal medicine
have had no way to detect brain activity in unborn
children. Now, for the first time, researchers using a
unique scanning device have shown that they can detect
fetal brain activity in response to flashes of light
transmitted through the mother's abdomen. With refinement,
this technique may help physicians detect and prevent fetal
brain damage resulting from maternal hypertension,
diabetes, and other conditions. The work was supported by
the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
(NINDS) and appears in the September 7, 2002, issue of "The
Lancet." (1)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. My personal

take on the beginning of life mirrors the definition of death: brain activity.

I am not advocating this be a legal definition or anything..it is must my personal boundary.

[mike_c]

31. ahh-- but how would you define "brain activity?"

The brain-- the top bit of the central nervous system-- is "active" in a metabolic sense from the moment it begins to form. Neurons never just sit in turned off state awaiting "activation." That's true of ALL animals, including the lowliest invertebrates.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

34. I just go with

the EEG definition.

In other words, I would not personally have an abortion after the brain was developed enough to have activity.

And of course I have absolutely no idea when that might be!

I have a problem with later term abortion, but don't advocate making them illegal. Just my personal code of behavior.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. Also

it seems to me if we as a culture can define "death" we ought to get it together enough to define life.

Not likely to happen, though.

[intheflow]

25. Very true, TN. Michael Servetus discovered the circulatory system

while trying to prove how the Holy Spirit worked in human endeavors. Breath in air, the Holy Spirit zips around your bod in your oxygen, and breath out renewed and ready to do God's work in the world! Servetus was a 16th century physician and theologian, btw. Burned by Calvin for saying the Trinity was hooey, there was only one God. God/dess love the heretics!

[enki23]

21. from another biologist...

that's what i've saying all along. thanks.

[Az]

23. Life began a long long time ago

And everything including you and myself are all part of the continuation of that initial start of life. Everything since then is just an interconnected chain of adaption and replication.

It is not life that we seek to protect. We lose more cells everyday from wear and tear than can be found in a 3 week old fetus. Yet we do not mourn the loss of these cells. Even though they are genetically human.

It is a unique identity. Consider twins. They are genetically identical. Yet we mourn when one dies and another lives. Genetically nothing has been lost. The particular genetic uniqueness is still existant. But a unique identity has been lost and this we mourn.

It is not life. It is people. Individuals. Minds that we seek to protect. And minds as far as we can tell do not exist without brains.

[CTyankee]

26. no, I've got it figured out

It isn't that the sperm itself is holy, it is that men "plant" their sperm and THAT is what is holy. Once that happens, it is a done deal that cannot be undone without the woman committing a mortal sin. Men should not be denied their God given right to fertilize ova.

[unblock]

37. "a little learning is a dangrous thing"

and there are few better examples than the learning about conception in the hands of an anti-choicer.


it's really difficult to understand a genuine reason do differentiate moral treatment of an egg and sperm moments before vs. moments after conception. surely implantation, the moment of viability, and birth are all clearly far more morally significant.

[Az]

42. I was doing escort service at a womens clinic this weekend

And one of the protestors claimed to be a Doctor. The outright nonsense she was pouring on these poor women as they tried to enter the building was astounding. If we escorts did not have to remain neutral I would have torn into her. Even so we would occaisionally take jabs and let the women know they were being lied to and counter with some real info.

[KittyWampus]

40. Perfect Example Of Materialism & What's Wrong W/ Science Today

"Conscious individuality requires a functioning, complex nervous system".

Consiousness isn't something that gradually arises from inert physical matter. This is what this biologist is saying & this is MATERIALISM, which is not provable nor the de facto philosophy of Science.

Alternative viewpoint= Consciousness is the BASIS of Physical Matter and the Stuff that Physical Matter moves around in. And each individual is an inlet in this infinite Sea of Consciousness.

Individual birth and death are just apparent phases wherein we use physical matter as vehicles.

Biologist would do much better to say that as far as Science can prove, Consciousness does not begin OR end and therefore, aborting the physical parts of a fetus doesn't touch whatever Consciousness may temporarily be residing in it.

[Az]

45. Funny thing about that

We can actually change the counsciousness by changing the brain. Memories. Personality. Every aspect of a person's consciousness can be changed by changing the brain. If it was independent of the brain you wouldn't expect such a direct cause/effect relationship.

[Pepperbelly]

50. why not?

The mind is clearly the result of brain function in our universe. Consciousness as either a creative or an organizing principle behind reality would in fact demand it merely BECAUSE that is the interim test of reality --its physicalness.

[Az]

56. Problem is

The brain behaves exactly how our understanding of nature would expect it to. If it was being guided by or interacting with an external source we would expect to see electrons zing when they should have zanged. We would see evidence of though preceding neurological activity.

Instead we find that the brain behaves in a marvelous way exactly how our understanding suggests it should. We can watch as the sense experience an event, translate that event into signals the brain then processes and reacts to. We can measure the time between event and experience. We can watch as the brain triggers to these experiences in a cascading effect. All of it responding to the plodding realities of our universe. At no point in time does the equation show a need to introduce a ghost in order to start the process.

[Pepperbelly]

60. huh?

What did that have to do with what I posted?

[Az]

62. Sorry,

I think I may have misread your post.

[KittyWampus]

55. You can change a car's direction by moving the steering wheel with remote

control or preprogramming too.

Science and you make rather grand assumptions.

[Az]

59. No, science continues to look and examine

The presumption here may be on other hands.

Simply put science sees no evidence suggesting a ghost(for lack of a better word). A remote would still impact the function of a device. In other words you could detect when the remote was guiding things. They would behave in ways other than what would be expected when the remote was not guiding them.

But the brain shows no evidence of external guidance. It is not an antena. It is a complex neural net. It is a massive matrix ideal for storing and interacting with data. It seems well suited for doing the stuff of making a mind. It does not appear to be suited for picking up signals that for some reason were waiting for such a matrix to arise.

[Pepperbelly]

64. You're operating at a step below the theory CryingShame is speaking of ...

IOW, if there is a basis of conciousness creating reality, and that conciousness did create reality, then what you are attempting to do is invalidate the system by the system's own predilections. You haven't stepped outside the boundries of how that would work.

In our universe ... our reality ... there are certain rules regarding how physicalness works. We know that. No one is positing anything to the contrary of that notion. That notion is implicit in the conciousness-begating-reality. Noting the agreed upon rules of how things act and react does not get to the bottom of logically or even scientifically.

[Az]

68. Lets clarify what you are trying to say

You seem to be suggesting that cousciousness exists prior to or independent of matter and energy. Its an interesting claim. But it seems to be at odds with the evidence at hand and has no evidence suggesting it. Can you illuminate the matter?

[Pepperbelly]

75. Yep ...

if you haven't ran into it yet, there are many who view the actions of the world when you get down to the tiniest levels of examination where the normal rules of physicalness break down. We continue to look more closely and things continue to get weirder and weirder.

I had an uncle ... passed now but he was one of Von Braun's pocket-protector brigade in the late 50s and early 60s in Huntsville. My uncle had an incredibly sharp scientific mind and an even sharper mathematical mind. He always studied, always examined and always searched.

The more closely you look at, he once told me, the odder it gets.

And he was right, vindicated by the physics work since his death in the mid-80s. With the scale at which are now viewing reality in an investigation of its ultimate basis, matter is very nearly at the point of being the product of abstractions as we speak. And, of course, that is without getting into the base reality of those tiny particles we now know make up the world.

I do not know the ultimate nature of matter nor of reality. But I would not be surprised to see abstraction at the bottom. Which of course, then leaves the question regarding the origin of the abstraction.

[Az]

99. Odd to be sure

But it still doesn't change the fact that our brains operate on a macro scale. Consciousness directly correlates to those macro scale interactions. We do not have to call upon quantum mechanics to explain the trapping of our brains function. Thus the oddness never really gets brought into our particular equations.

It is the day to day predicitable functions of the brain that we can directly effect and cause a change in the state of a person's mind. Not just minor changes either. We can erase a person's identity. We can rewrite who they are. We can demolish their memories. We can map out the portions of their brain that respond when they view someone they love. All macro. All predictible. All following the expectations of a cause/effect interpretation.

[Pepperbelly]

100. yep ...

and in a consciousness-created universe ... just like a clockwork universe or a shit-happens universe or a materialistic universe or a God created universe... whatever it happens to be ... that seems to be what we have, at least on a level compatible with the rather crude instruments we were dealt to start with.

[TahitiNut]

70. Yes... and Jack Benny actually stops talking when I turn the dial.

:silly:

[Pepperbelly]

76. Jack Benny is ...

residing in MY cd and not on your fucking radio so stop saying that.

[mike_c]

67. well, in fairness, I DID identify this as a biologist's perspective...

...and I am very much a believer in material causes. I'm a scientist, not a metaphysicist. Maybe, in the end, everything we experience as reality is in fact a manifestation of the cosmic turtle having bad gas, but while we're living it reality follows some predictable organizing principles.

[Pepperbelly]

69. absolutely right ...

it certainly seems to me although almost all of them break down when it gets to the level of looking them over REAL closely. They all break down when the scale is small enough.

[mike_c]

86. scale dependence....

Big fleas have little fleas
upon their backs to bite 'em;
little fleas have smaller fleas,
and so ad infinitum.

All kidding aside, in a mechanistic universe rules governing the behavior of matter and energy at one scale are emergent properties of rules at smaller scales, but no one ever said that the rules have to remain the same all the way down to the smallest scale. In fact, is there even a "smallest scale", an irreducible level of material cause? Now I'm beginning to go WAY beyond my comfort zone, so I'd better stop.

[Pepperbelly]

91. As I noted above ...

EVERYTHING breaks down when it gets small enough. I still believe that a who-the-fuck-knows attitude is the only prudent one when we get to these sorts of questions.

[Nobody]

107. I believe Heisenberg has a theory about that

At the subatomic level, you can measure the location OR you can measure the speed, but not both on the same particle at the same time. Furthermore, trying to measure subatomic particles changes the measurements.

A more macro example of this is when my boss ordered everyone in my group to record exactly what we were doing all day in 5 minute increments. We even had to mention restroom breaks. All this was to prove we weren't just sitting on our butts all day.

All I learned from this was that the boss was nuts and that we wasted at least a half hour each day writing this stuff down.

But what I'd like to know is how people can know exactly when conception occurs so I can celebrate my "Conception Day" instead of my "Birth Day" and so I can be eligible for my senior discount on the 55th anniversary of my conception and save money for months prior to my "birth day".

[Pepperbelly]

115. he sure made a hell of a theory there, didn't he?

The implications of it are astounding, unless one is thick and ordinary. For those unfortunates, it is another drudgery to learn and then quickly forget.

[mike_c]

122. I have an original copy of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...

...monograph that I found in a used bookstore years ago. I can't read it-- the math is beyond me-- but it's still one of my coolest possessions.

[Pepperbelly]

123. do you keep in a safe deposit box?

I would, I think. that sounds very cool.

[mike_c]

124. no, it's on my book shelf....

Here it is: The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory by Werner Heisenberg, published in 1930 by the University of Chicago, 186 pp (but the format is 5 3/8 x 8 inches). Translated into english by Carl Eckart and Frank Hoyt of the UC Dept. of Physics. Original cost: $1.25. It's the paper-bound "Student's edition"-- the hardbound ed is mentioned on the inside front cover as costing $2.50. I paid 50 cents for it. Isn't that amazing?

Actually, this is a monograph Heisenberg developed from a series of lectures he gave on quantum physics at UC in the late 1920's. It has a chapter on his uncertainty principle.

[trotsky]

72. Just find us a consciousness

that isn't dependent on a physical mind, and you'll overturn evil materialistic science altogether!

We're waiting...

[FM Arouet666]

84. Your alternative viewpoint has no basis in fact.

"The Stuff that physical matter moves around in." So, we should be able to establish that statement how? A "consciousometer" measuring background consciousness at different locations where physical matter congregates. I guess the earth is in an accretion of consciousness, and the moon is in a void.

Physical matter as vehicles?

Science can prove? And, I will state this ad nausem, science proves nothing, proof is best left to mathematics and liquor. You can read about the scientific method to understand, I fear any further debate will be lost on deaf ears.

Science which includes the super natural is no longer science, it is a worthless means with which to study and understand the world around us.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. "proof is best left to mathematics and liquor"

Nice one!
:thumbsup:

[Pepperbelly]

96. perhaps the dictionary might help ...

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Such as ...

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proof

For a toss-off, it was neither accurate nor funny.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Well, I understand the intent behind the "toss-off"

Maybe I'm more easily amused than you.

[Pepperbelly]

98. I don't know ...

did you see Citizen Ruth?

[Warren DeMontague]

104. It wasn't as funny as Ruben and Ed

My cat can eat a whole watermelon!

[Pepperbelly]

105. no, no, no ... you miss the point or assumed the point but the real point

is ...

When Laura Dern, bless her perverse and eccentric heart, while portraying Ruth, was taking a bath and had her big toe stuck into the faucett and she lay there in the wet-warm, looking at it through one eye and then through the other, so on and so forth, by closing one eye, then the other.

That amused her. I fear it would amuse me as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. I hear ya.

a childlike sense of play is a very important life skill. Tough to keep.

I think in that movie she achieved that state of mind by huffing large amounts of spray paint, if I remember correctly, maybe not the healthiest way to go about it... but, hey, whatever gets ya through the night.

[Pepperbelly]

116. exactly ...

and didn't Laura Dern do a fine job in that?

Of course, she almost always does do a fine job.

[FM Arouet666]

102. What a hoot.

You have been arguing about science long enough to know that a simple dictionary definition is insufficient to counter the statement. "Funny" is in the eye of the beholder, as for accuracy, you need not look beyond any introductory science text.

An intro science link, not completely vetted for accuracy, but which makes the point.

http://www.malone.edu/erodd/n160proof.htm

[Pepperbelly]

112. operational definition is a cop out and serves to sidetrack ...

discussion. The common dictionary definitions concerning english usage of words actually are the authority when operating in a world of words and people reading words.

You can define them however you wish but unless you note your special definition, then it is pernicious to then attempt to turn argumentation because of the specific definition you used but didn't bother to advise.

:D

[FM Arouet666]

131. Special definition? No, just the scientific definition.

No need to advise, this thread started with my opposition to the use of the word "proof" in the context of a debate about science.
Science does not seek to "prove" anything. Support or disprove an hypothesis.

Just for that, I will have to add that my first post was funny and accurate. So there... :popcorn:

[Pepperbelly]

139. this ... in places ...

transcends "science" and, btw, it is in GD, not Science.

Do you mean lol funny or chuckle funny or smirk funny?

[FM Arouet666]

140. Rolling on the ground, side sticking, funny. HA HA.

Ok, perhaps, not that funny, but pretty damn funny in a muted serious sense of the word. :+

[Pepperbelly]

144. a soft chuckle at you monitor ...

which, on the internets, is okay.

[FM Arouet666]

145. You got me on that one. ;)

Our great leader.......

:rofl:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

118. "Consciousometer" makes me think

of the alethiometer from Philip Pullman's brilliant His Dark Materials trilogy. A total classic, and there's no "childrens'" literature like it... the issues he tackles are monumental and astounding. I love it.

That's my shameless advertising plug for the day....

;) ;)

~WIMR

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Right, the theocrats are on a constitution-trampling rampage, working

overtime to criminalize BOTH abortion AND most forms of birth control....

And it's the gul-durn scientists, with that pesky materialist 'viewpoint' (which negates or even threatens any of your personal opinions about the nature of matter and consciousness... how?) that are the real PROBLEM.

Way to prioritize. :eyes:

[kestrel91316]

41. Brilliant. Thank you.

[Nikki Stone 1]

48. Thanks for this

recommended

[China_cat]

52. If they want to be 'biblical' about their teachings

then they need to really adhere to what the bible says. With only 2 exceptions (one for John the baptist and one for Jesus) the bible counts LIFE as 'from first breath to last'. Period.

Even with the Catholic church, until about 1850 a fetus was not considered a 'life' until it was 'ensouled'. Which happened in the 5th or 6th month of gestation.

[Autonomy]

54. WHO CARES WHEN LIFE BEGINS?

Don't accept the premise of the question. A woman's pregnancy is a matter between a her and her doctor only. Period.

[Nikki Stone 1]

58. A dilemma for those who think life begins at conception

Your are a firefighter and there is a terrible fire going on in a fertility clinic. You are on your last trip into the building when you hear a cry: in the corner of the room is a 5-year old child screaming. But in the other corner of the room, there is a freezer filled with embryos waiting for implantation. There are at least 100 embryos.

You are pro-life. You can only carry out either the screaming child or the freezer, you can't do both. If you carry out the child, you save one life. If you carry out the freezer, you save 100 children, according to your beliefs.

Which do you choose?

(You can say this would never happen, but that is not the point. Dilemmas like this are meant to help us examine our beliefs.)

[Az]

61. The problem with that position

Is it abandons the argument to those that oppose abortion. And that becomes the stick they will demolish womens right's with.

Legally yes. The legal reason for supporting choice is to preserve a woman's right to privacy and control of her own body. But we are not creatures of legal rights alone.

We naturally consider moral issues. And if we abandon that argument and hold only to the privacy and control issues ... its gonna be a short battle.

[Autonomy]

78. I don't think it's likely

that the fight over when life begins will save a woman's right to choose. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be on entrenched ideological grounds. IOW, five SCOTUS members will have their agenda to overturn the decision, arguments to the contrary not withstanding. By framing such a move as an infringement on a woman's medical rights, the seriousness of the issue is at the forefront. The fact that 'when does life begin?' is so highly debatable could, alone, provide the open door for a so-motivated justice to overturn Roe. We will have lost the war over an inch of ground. Better to lose or win each battle on the the entire scope and magnitude of the issue.

[formercia]

73. I have 2 brothers over 50

and neither of them have gotten a life yet.

[mike_c]

81. ROFL....

Maybe the basic premise needs reexamination.... :rofl:

[FM Arouet666]

74. Yes, but the miracle of the soul occurs with conception.

What makes human life different from all other life on the planet? The soul, we are the only animal on the planet endowed with this holy gift from god. The sperm and egg are both living, sure, but they lack a soul. Else, onanism would be a much graver sin, murder on the scale of millions.

Once the miracle of fertilization occurs to abort the conceptus would be a moral sin against god. It is ok to pass a law protecting the unborn, since we are not really talking about when life begins, we are talking about protecting life with a soul given it by the lord. After all we are a christian nation and the founding fathers never intended for us to kill gods children. Did they?

Now, before you pull out your spleen in flaming passion to respond. Please note, what I wrote above is utter crap, however, this is the typical response I get when arguing with fundies. Rational scientific thinking falls on deaf ears, the selfish drive for personal immortality is more important than womens rights, scientific education, world peace, equality for all. Nice post, I feel your pain.

[mike_c]

79. tucking my spleen back in...

...after getting to your last paragraph. Ouch, that hurts....

[Fleshdancer]

93. *snort*

"pull out your spleen in flaming passion"...I'm definitely using that phrase some day.

I agree with your point. Arguing science and logic against someone who rejects both can be an excruciatingly painful, spleen ripping experience.

I guess the big question for myself is why do I keep doing it?

[FM Arouet666]

101. Why do motorists stare at gory accidents? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Therefore, people born from embryos that were frozen for 16 years

should be able to legally buy liquor at age 5.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

108. Wow.... I almost vomited there...

...thought you were "series..." ;)

[librechik]

136. I tell the fundies "Life begins when the Dear Lord breathes the first

breath into the baby's lungs and it cries out in response."

That usually shuts them up, even though it's crap too.

It's just crap I can live with, I guess.

[grannylib]

83. The notion that sperm and egg hold the key to "life" is what makes some

fundies want to ban birth control, too.
I think the fundies should take a look at scripture...there is a FINE for killing a pregnant woman's fetus, not the same penalty that is handed down for murdering an already-born person.

[Gregorian]

88. Isn't this really an issue of privacy?

While we're focused on abortion, they are prying into our lives.

It seems to me that if something is contained within my body, it is none of anyone elses business.

It should be about that simple.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Yep. Life began some 4 billion years ago.

the antecedents to conception are just as "alive" as the post-conception fertilized egg. Which begs the question, are the pro-lifers interested in "rights" for eggs and sperms?

That's probably next.

[ladjf]

95. One of the great posts. Thank you for your astute contribution

to our enlightenment on DU. Write more please.

[BR_Parkway]

103. Damn, they never asked Roberts if he felt there was a constitutional right

to masterbate. We could all wind up in serious trouble if the AmeriTaliban were to continue their jihad.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

109. ROFL...

....even though that is quite a serious topic...

[BR_Parkway]

114. sadly, it was a semi-serious post. Some of these RW schools around here

act like self gratification is the same crime as nailing Christ to the tree.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

117. Oh, I know.

Fortunately, that sort of shit hasn't come into play much in Maine.

You'd think they'd LIKE masturbation. It keeps people from having sex before marriage, by acting on sexual fantasies in an entirely safe manner, so that you don't need to go out and bang people up.

[stubtoe]

119. Thank you mike_c

Your writing exactly captures my thoughts on the continuance of life. Who could not see otherwise? The entire "life begins at conception/or birth or whatever argument is baseless. Life really is a continuous thread.

As for consciousness, awareness and personhood - we can still only guess when those capabilities arrive.

[Qanisqineq]

120. that's what I've been saying all along, too

how can life BEGIN at conception when the sperm and egg are alive?

[DarleenMB]

126. Stupid spinoff...

I'm sorry if this has been posted already but I didn't have the patience to read the whole thread.

This whole "debate" about when "life begins" is just a twisted version of the ancient Christian debate about when the "soul" enters the body. It's just another smoke screen to try and justify ending legal abortions.

[mike_c]

127. agreed-- I posted this in response to the thread about the Italian...

...legal debate over defining when "life begins." Utterly stupid debate, IMO. Life began billions of years ago-- presumably more than once-- it's been continuous ever since.

[KC21304]

138. I think it was James Wolcott who said

the fundies believe that life begins at erection.

[alarimer]

129. My thoughts exactly

But I am just a materialistic scientist as well. LOL.

Part of the reasoning against abortion is also the premise that human life is sacred and unique. I personally do not believe that it is. We are merely another sort of animal with certain abilities (NOT endowed by a creator but gained through natural selection and the process of evolution).

[IDemo]

132. Apologies if this has been posted before:

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan have defined the issue quite well for me:

http://www.giamilinovich.com/sagans_abortion_essay.html

[walldude]

133. Every sperm is sacred...

I think the abortion question for fundies shouldn't be when does life begin but when does the "spirit" enter the body. Their entire religion is based on the assumption that a person has a spirit that exists whether the body is alive or not. They argue about abortion but betray their own arguements by saying that when you die your spirit goes to either Heaven or Hell. Well if what they say is true then the body is nothing more than a vessel and they shouldn't be so all fired up about it. Let them chew on that..

[DanCa]

135. I dont legislate my opinon and this is just my opinion

I say until the brain stem and heart beat connect theres no contraditicion. I also say the mans only place in being against abortion is saying no to the sexual act. I also dont think it's a sin to abort a baby if the mothers life is in danger or if the woman will wind up paralyzed or if she wants to save the baby from a severe chronic neurologic illness.

[LizMoonstar]

141. i've always wanted to ask a fundie if

they've ever seen a real fetus. not pictures, not an ultrasound, a fetus. right there in their face. i think it'd make an interesting impression. it sure did on me. when i realised they were freaking out over an eight-week-old BLOB OF CELLS, i felt a lot better ;)

most excellent thread!

[Az]

142. A more troubling question for them

What happens to the soul of the fetus?

[ComerPerro]

143. Bill Maher, "New Rules", on stem cells

Now here’s how far back along the chain of life stem cells are. They’re called stem cells because they haven’t even decided what kind of cells they’re going to be. So it’s very close to declaring that life begins when you’re just thinking about fucking somebody.

[the_spectator]

146. Well that biologist's points certainly back up the pro-life position

I'm surprised no-one's asked though...

Conscious individuality requires a functioning, complex nervous system. Undoubtedly normal human babies are self-aware by the time they're born, but even then, their nervous systems are incomplete.

...exactly how late we should be able to get away with killing our newborn children? 1, 2 years? What about killing other people's children? (Like on the plane, if they're being really loud. And it's a long flight.):silly: