Hundreds of thousands march in Washington

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Then again, why should anyone be forced to give their skilled labor away for free, or the food they grew/raised and slaughtered out?

Because they're selfish and antisocial and don't know how to care for those that are the "have nots". If they won't give it willingly, then they should be strung up and shot like pigs by the red army that's going to overthrow your capitalist nation once guns have been banned.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Fine. I'll forget about a soul. Then in this case I'll adopt the stance that a human isn't a human until it LOOKS like one. Is that what you want? You're trying to back up your faith with science and it just doesn't work like that. You can't preach to me and then claim I need to be scientific about my arguments.

[Jerr Conner]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Choices can be made, but most likely won't be made. Most people can't just put aside differences so easily. It takes time to sort through those emotions; time a baby can't afford to wait out.

You're missing the point. I present possibility. You can't argue that certain things aren't possible by presenting definite hypotheticals like this. "Most likely" is unknown, for you're speaking about people and events you have no knowledge of.

I am presenting the reality that HUMAN CHOICE means that such outcomes are ALWAYS a possibility. No child need ever be abandoned or aborted if people make the applicable choices that are available.[/QUOTE]Actually, I didn't miss that point. Just because there's a possibility doesn't mean it's going to happen.

There's always a possibility someone will find a way to treat and eradicate Muscular Dystrophy, but most likely not in my lifetime.

Just because a woman decides to keep her baby, or put it up for adoption, there is a possibility that child will live a good life.

But there is an equal, and in half the cases a more pressing, possibility that they'll live a bad life. Especially when people cannot and/or will not work together to make the choices that need to be made in order for the good life to have more of a possibility.

What we need to do, if we are to be a human society that a. Saves more human life from premature end b. Saves more women from extreme mental anguish is to create a society that cares for mothers, and edifies life, by encouraging such choices, and providing support so that those choices can be made.

I'm disagreeing here.

We need a society that cares for all families, mothers included.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Fine. I'll forget about a soul. Then in this case I'll adopt the stance that a human isn't a human until it LOOKS like one. Is that what you want? You're trying to back up your faith with science and it just doesn't work like that. You can't preach to me and then claim I need to be scientific about my arguments.

ANd what does a human look like? I've already asked if a person born without legs is considered less than human. What of people born with all sorts of abnormalities? Conjoined twins etc etc.

POTENTIAL is what defines humans. Not whether then human fits into the preset mould. It is the potential of the human, given time and perfect health.

You do need to be scientific about your answers. Wherever possible - especially on matters of faith - I try and be a scientific as possible. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive, but intertwine and overlap. The matter of when in the womb human life starts is not a faith question, but a scientific one.

[Jerr Conner]

I'd say what defines a human is when brain activity begins.

Of course I don't know when that is.

If it were as simple as "inside" of someone, then many men would be guilty of abortion through ejaculation.

On a final note, the Soul need not be a Religious Discussion; it can be a Philosophical Discussion.

[ 05-01-2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Fine. I'll forget about a soul. Then in this case I'll adopt the stance that a human isn't a human until it LOOKS like one. Is that what you want? You're trying to back up your faith with science and it just doesn't work like that. You can't preach to me and then claim I need to be scientific about my arguments.

ANd what does a human look like? I've already asked if a person born without legs is considered less than human. What of people born with all sorts of abnormalities? Conjoined twins etc etc.

POTENTIAL is what defines humans. Not whether then human fits into the preset mould. It is the potential of the human, given time and perfect health.

You do need to be scientific about your answers. Wherever possible - especially on matters of faith - I try and be a scientific as possible. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive, but intertwine and overlap. The matter of when in the womb human life starts is not a faith question, but a scientific one. [/QUOTE]I have yet to hear scientists agree on when human life starts. You can use science to back up your faith in this case, but you can't say that, speaking from a scientific perspective, a zygote is a human being. It's just one way of looking at it.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I'd say what defines a human is when brain activity begins.

And what about humans with no brain activity? Do they become another species?
Of course not.
Tell me, if a zygot is not classified under "human" what is it classified under? Fish? Larvae are still insects, they are just in the larvae PHASE. a zygot is a human in it's larva phase. Given TIME and CIRCUMSTANCE it will grow into a human just like any other. Whether it dies in the womb, at age 5 at age 25, at age 75 or 115 it remains human, defined by it's POTENTIAL, not by it's actuality, it's appearance, or it's bodily functions.

Of course I don't know when that is.

Which is why your definition is erroneous. There is no clear line of yes/no. Too much grey. With mine it is clear. No confusion. Life starts = human. No "six week" confusion. No brain activity confusion. You know because you set a clear and determined boundary.

If it were as simple as "inside" of someone, then many men would be guilty of abortion through ejaculation.

No. The egg being fertilised so it starts to grow is the initial onset of human life. Sperm is seed. Sperm will not become a human on it. Sperm fertilises an egg. It is the egg that becomes human at the point of fertilisation.

On a final note, the Soul need not be a Religious Discussion; it can be a Philosophical Discussion.

Most of my religious discussion are philisophical.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I have yet to hear scientists agree on when human life starts. You can use science to back up your faith in this case, but you can't say that, speaking from a scientific perspective, a zygote is a human being. It's just one way of looking at it.

Speaking from a scientific perspective, a zygote is a human being.

What was so hard about saying that? I certainly can say it. I'll say it again:

Speaking from a scientific perspective, a zygote is a human being.

Whether scientists all agree or not is not the point. Not all doctors or psychologists agree on a treatment. It is a scientific opinion. My opinion is based on biological understanding, not on faith speculation - which was what I was differenciating.