Is a fertilized egg a "person"...?

First topic message reminder :

Is a fertilized egg a "person"...? Mississippi is voting on just that...an initiative to define personhood for the unborn.

Opinions? If the premise that a fetus doesn't have "the right to life" because it's not legally a person, then wouldn't changing the legal definition of a person to include a fertilized egg be a legitimate argument. After all, the legal right to an abortion in the U.S. is predicated upon the supposition that an unborn fetus is not a person...however, a huge contradiction exists because the law allows for the death of a fetus at the hands of a person OTHER than the mother as "fetal homocide" and "fetacide", a criminal offense.

My opinion, for those who don't know, is that abortion and the trivializing of the unborn erodes our humanity. As an atheist, I don't base this belief in religion but the unwavering stance that when we look at the unborn as mere "tissue" to be excised at will, we all lose some of our humanity.

JP Cusick wrote:The other kind of "need" where the mother is being pressured to let her own baby to be killed by some Abortionist, then I say we need to help the mother to escape that need.

I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion. You're again indulging your desire to make risible and simplistic generalisations.

Surely in the states every pregnant woman is not pressurised by proffessionals into having an abortion? they would be pretty bloody busy would they not?. This guy gets worse, I did not think it possible but he is getting worse.   

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion. You're again indulging your desire to make simplistic generalisations that make them risible.

No one in the States actually pressures a woman to have an abortion. In fact, the opposite is true. Some states pressure a woman NOT to have an abortion. For instance, Virginia and other states adopted a law that requires (forces) a woman to see an ultrasound of her fetus before she can have an abortion. Plus they've (meaning the Christian right) have enacted (or tried to enact) bizarre laws all over the nation. In Louisiana, they tried to pass a law requiring all high school girls to get a pregnancy test, and if a girl is pregnant or plans to get pregnant, she would be immediately expelled from school. This was to prevent teen pregnancy and, ostensibly, abortions. Fortunately this law was struck down as unconstitutional. But they keep trying. There was another attempt at the federal level, this time to redefine rape as having to be violent. In other words, if the woman does not put up a fight, forced and unwanted intercourse would not be considered rape. This meant that women who were unconscious, passed out, affected by date-rape drugs, or women too terrified to fight back could not press rape charged on her attacker. This was an idiotic attempt by the Christian right to narrow the parameters of rape so that fewer abortions by rape victims would occur. This law, too, was struck down and failed to pass in the Senate (Obama would veto it anyway).

All in all, there were over 600 laws introduced by various state and federal legislators trying to severely limit abortion without actually trying to make it illegal.

And this doesn't even count efforts by church groups to pressure women not to have abortions. This includes some highly emotive and hyperbolic billboard ads. One of the most sickening ones showed an ultrasound of a fetus, and the fetus was saying, "But I love you mommy!" Ugh. Plus, at least once a week while driving to class, a gang of pro-life thugs gathered at a busy intersection with a long traffic light and forced anti-abortion signs in my face while singing hymns. They would walk right up to people's cars and smack the sign against their windows. I used to crank Ozzie Osbourne to drown out their crap.

So yeah, the real pressure is NOT to have an abortion.

In the decades long debate over abortion in the United States, a statistic coming from a pro-choice organization may indicate that the pro-life side is on the offensive.

According to a report from the Center for Reproductive Rights, thus far in 2011 an estimated 600 pieces of legislation that would restrict abortion access have been introduced in state legislatures.

Proposed legislation tracked by the CRR includes measures to expand waiting periods, mandated ultrasounds, and increased regulation of abortion facilities.

LINK

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I may be wrong here, but weren't Obama's health care reforms, that the far right (christians) tried their best to scupper, meant to address precisely these issues, and improve health care for the poorest citizens in the USA?

Yes, that is correct. Unfortunately, the insurance business and the right-wingers (who are often evangelical Christians) try to prevent this. So far, the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare") has been unsuccessfully repealed over 42 times. This latest attempt caused the government to shut down for over a week as the Republicans tried to hold America hostage in an attempt to defund the program. I've even heard a few crackpot judges in Southern states cry for civil war against the government due to Obamacare.

This just goes to show you that the right-wing, which are predominately fundamentalist, evangelical, and Baptist Christians couldn't care less about the plight of the poor. For all of their efforts to take health care away from the poor, you would think they hate the poor. Hell, some DO hate the poor as they are blamed for the annual $300 billion social welfare expenditure. Many of them think the best way to limit the budget deficit is to extensively cut or eliminate altogether America's social safety net. The right-wing answer to government assistance and health care is .... (drum roll please) ... charity!

Yeah, charity ... that way they can drop their spare change into various jars and cans, or donate their old and no-longer-wanted clothes and blankets ... and still feel smugly good about themselves without having to pay on average $400 per year in taxes to fund the welfare program. I have argued repeatedly that charity is not up to the task because a) charity money is too widely dispersed among thousands of charities, b) charitable giving is heavily biased toward children, c) donations are too unpredictable so that people on programs like Disability and Social Security cannot rely on a steady check every month d) charity does not have the resources to pay for expensive or long-term health care needs (such as organ transplants or cancer treatments), e) charity can be prejudicial if it wishes to be, and since many charities are also religious, they can withhold services from certain groups like, say, homosexuals, liberals, women who've had an abortion, etc. There are more reasons, but I think I've listed enough to see what I mean.

Going back to that $300 billion per year expenditure, back in 2010, the Pentagon (i.e. the US military) was set to lose $10 billion, so the Republicans tried to pass a bill that would cut $40 billion from the welfare program (mainly from programs such as Meals On Wheels that help the elderly) to make up for the shortfall. That bill failed to pass, fortunately. But it goes to show you that these so-called "Christian" right-wingers will spare no expense for weapons to kill people but balk at the thought of paying even a penny for programs that heal people. America already spends more on its military than the next 19 nations combined -- which includes China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and the entire European Union. Yet somehow it couldn't afford to lose a "mere" $10 billion.

At any rate, this is one of those subjects I could go on and on about, so I'll stop belaboring the point.  

Shirina, why on earth does JP, INSINUATE that the US pressurises women who are pregnant to have an abortion.?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion.

I did not say nor imply that the Abortionist does the pressuring, as I suspect the Abortionist tries to pretend to be some sweet nice lovable person to the victim mother - instead of showing their true self as the baby murderer which they really are.

You are trying to do the same thing here in this discussion thread - you are trying to deceive.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion.

JP Cusick wrote:I did not say nor imply that the Abortionist does the pressuring, as I suspect the Abortionist tries to pretend to be some sweet nice lovable person to the victim mother - instead of showing their true self as the baby murderer which they really are.

You are trying to do the same thing here in this discussion thread - you are trying to deceive.

If you had a medical profession that was guided by the idea of service to those that have need rather than trying to elicit profit from those that are suffering then you might trust your doctors a bit more.

A lot of us in Britain are proud of our NHS( National Health Service - Free at point of delivery to all those that have need).

We have a minor problem with health 'tourism' (including some from USA) but it is being addressed.

Heretic

JP Cusick wrote:I did not say nor imply that the Abortionist does the pressuring, as I suspect the Abortionist tries to pretend to be some sweet nice lovable person to the victim mother - instead of showing their true self as the baby murderer which they really are.

What do you expect from abortion doctors? Do you think that they have horns, fangs, bat-like wings, and a barbed tail? They're just humans like everyone else, and I'm sure many ARE nice and lovable. Just because they perform abortions doesn't mean they should bellow evil supervillain laughs, carry a pitchfork, and really enjoy killing "babies." It's as if you think doctors went into the profession just so they could (muhahahahahaha!) kill "babies."  

What, precisely, is the "true self" of a doctor who performs abortions? I mean, you said yourself that you're not necessarily against abortions, so what's all this "baby murderer" nonsense? As Dr. Sheldon pointed out, this kind of emotive language is designed to manipulate all who read it, and for those smart enough not to be manipulated, it's really quite anger-inducing. We are fully aware that a clump of non-sentient cells is not a BABY.

Using the term "baby" causes people to think of an actual, fully formed and sentient infant lying in a cradle with big eyes and a cute baby-laugh; a fully formed infant playing with toys and cuddling with her little pink blanky.

NO ... no, no, no. Using terms like that is intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

And to use the term "murderer," well, that would be about the same thing as calling a cancer doctor a "murderer" for killing living cancer cells.

I'm all for the idea of disallowing abortions once the pregnancy reaches a certain stage, and most abortion laws have those limits in place. But calling a clump of cells a "baby" is just ridiculous. It's like calling a brick a "house" because one day that brick will be a part of a house.

Just like calling a wheel a car because one day it is going to be part of a car, my baby daughter is 7years old now but she is still my baby. He calls them babies because it gets a more emotive response, instead of the cells of which they are.

stu wrote:Just like calling a wheel a car because one day it is going to be part of a car, my baby daughter is 7years old now but she is still my baby. He calls them babies because it gets a more emotive response, instead of the cells of which they are.

My babies are 32, 31 and 28.

Heretic

Goodnight.

goodnight heretic, clocks back tonight!! dinner for me then bed, so goodnight from me also.

stu wrote:Just like calling a wheel a car because one day it is going to be part of a car, my baby daughter is 7years old now but she is still my baby. He calls them babies because it gets a more emotive response, instead of the cells of which they are.

Exactly... the argument has to be emotive because they are losing the argument rationally.

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion. You're again indulging your desire to make simplistic generalisations that make them risible.

No one in the States actually pressures a woman to have an abortion. In fact, the opposite is true. Some states pressure a woman NOT to have an abortion. For instance, Virginia and other states adopted a law that requires (forces) a woman to see an ultrasound of her fetus before she can have an abortion. Plus they've (meaning the Christian right) have enacted (or tried to enact) bizarre laws all over the nation. In Louisiana, they tried to pass a law requiring all high school girls to get a pregnancy test, and if a girl is pregnant or plans to get pregnant, she would be immediately expelled from school. This was to prevent teen pregnancy and, ostensibly, abortions. Fortunately this law was struck down as unconstitutional. But they keep trying. There was another attempt at the federal level, this time to redefine rape as having to be violent. In other words, if the woman does not put up a fight, forced and unwanted intercourse would not be considered rape. This meant that women who were unconscious, passed out, affected by date-rape drugs, or women too terrified to fight back could not press rape charged on her attacker. This was an idiotic attempt by the Christian right to narrow the parameters of rape so that fewer abortions by rape victims would occur. This law, too, was struck down and failed to pass in the Senate (Obama would veto it anyway).

All in all, there were over 600 laws introduced by various state and federal legislators trying to severely limit abortion without actually trying to make it illegal.

And this doesn't even count efforts by church groups to pressure women not to have abortions. This includes some highly emotive and hyperbolic billboard ads. One of the most sickening ones showed an ultrasound of a fetus, and the fetus was saying, "But I love you mommy!" Ugh. Plus, at least once a week while driving to class, a gang of pro-life thugs gathered at a busy intersection with a long traffic light and forced anti-abortion signs in my face while singing hymns. They would walk right up to people's cars and smack the sign against their windows. I used to crank Ozzie Osbourne to drown out their crap.

So yeah, the real pressure is NOT to have an abortion.

In the decades long debate over abortion in the United States, a statistic coming from a pro-choice organization may indicate that the pro-life side is on the offensive.

According to a report from the Center for Reproductive Rights, thus far in 2011 an estimated 600 pieces of legislation that would restrict abortion access have been introduced in state legislatures.

Proposed legislation tracked by the CRR includes measures to expand waiting periods, mandated ultrasounds, and increased regulation of abortion facilities.

LINK

So the exact opposite of JP Cusick's claim then. I'm not even going to feign surprise.

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I may be wrong here, but weren't Obama's health care reforms, that the far right (christians) tried their best to scupper, meant to address precisely these issues, and improve health care for the poorest citizens in the USA?

Yes, that is correct. Unfortunately, the insurance business and the right-wingers (who are often evangelical Christians) try to prevent this. So far, the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare") has been unsuccessfully repealed over 42 times.  This latest attempt caused the government to shut down for over a week as the Republicans tried to hold America hostage in an attempt to defund the program. I've even heard a few crackpot judges in Southern states cry for civil war against the government due to Obamacare.

This just goes to show you that the right-wing, which are predominately fundamentalist, evangelical, and Baptist Christians couldn't care less about the plight of the poor. For all of their efforts to take health care away from the poor, you would think they hate the poor. Hell, some DO hate the poor as they are blamed for the annual $300 billion social welfare expenditure. Many of them think the best way to limit the budget deficit is to extensively cut or eliminate altogether America's social safety net. The right-wing answer to government assistance and health care is .... (drum roll please) ... charity!

Yeah, charity ... that way they can drop their spare change into various jars and cans, or donate their old and no-longer-wanted clothes and blankets ... and still feel smugly good about themselves without having to pay on average $400 per year in taxes to fund the welfare program. I have argued repeatedly that charity is not up to the task because a) charity money is too widely dispersed among thousands of charities, b) charitable giving is heavily biased toward children, c) donations are too unpredictable so that people on programs like Disability and Social Security cannot rely on a steady check every month d) charity does not have the resources to pay for expensive or long-term health care needs (such as organ transplants or cancer treatments), e) charity can be prejudicial if it wishes to be, and since many charities are also religious, they can withhold services from certain groups like, say, homosexuals, liberals, women who've had an abortion, etc.  There are more reasons, but I think I've listed enough to see what I mean.

Going back to that $300 billion per year expenditure, back in 2010, the Pentagon (i.e. the US military) was set to lose $10 billion, so the Republicans tried to pass a bill that would cut $40 billion from the welfare program (mainly from programs such as Meals On Wheels that help the elderly) to make up for the shortfall. That bill failed to pass, fortunately. But it goes to show you that these so-called "Christian" right-wingers will spare no expense for weapons to kill people but balk at the thought of paying even a penny for programs that heal people. America already spends more on its military than the next 19 nations combined -- which includes China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and the entire European Union. Yet somehow it couldn't afford to lose a "mere" $10 billion.

At any rate, this is one of those subjects I could go on and on about, so I'll stop belaboring the point.  

Actually it's good that you take the time, and have the patience to produce such in depth evidence. I find JP Cusick's endless unevidenced claims extremely tedious and am fairly impressed that you keep plugging away with facts and evidence. Yet again we see that JP Cusick's claim about the west punishing parents and children is in fact overly simplistic, and very disingenuous, since it is largely the religious right that do that, despite their, and his, empty rhetoric claiming the opposite.

JP Cusick wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:As like our ignorant societies in the West are hateful to parents and hateful to children, so if the parents do not get the abortion then our evil society will punish each of the parents in so many ways that parents really are pressured to kill their unborn baby at the hands of a legalized murderer Abortionist, and that is what I say needs to be corrected.

If our hate-filled societies in the West would stop our hatred against parents and against children, and then if we would start celebrating all new born babies then the abortionist would run very low on such innocent customers.  

Apparently my meaning here got sidetracked and so I want clear that up some.

Well Shirina has not posted a great deal of evidence showing that in he states it's the religious and christian far right that is doing this by condemning parents to poverty. So it's christians and the religious through their actions that are in fact causing a situation where more abortions are being sought by parents who simply can't support a child, or another child.

JP Cusick wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion.

I did not say nor imply that the Abortionist does the pressuring, as I suspect the Abortionist tries to pretend to be some sweet nice lovable person to the victim mother - instead of showing their true self as the baby murderer which they really are.

You are trying to do the same thing here in this discussion thread - you are trying to deceive.

JP Cusick wrote:
The other kind of "need" where the mother is being pressured to let her own baby to be killed by some Abortionist, then I say we need to help the mother to escape that need.

Perhaps you need to make your posts more clear, as they contain endless evidenced claims, clinched and empty rhetoric, and disingenuous and sweeping generalisations. As for accusing me of deception, given your idiotic and risible claims of murdering babies, you are making yourself appear a liar, and a clown to boot. Tread carefully as I have made no attempt to deceive, unlike you.

Heretic wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion.

JP Cusick wrote:I did not say nor imply that the Abortionist does the pressuring, as I suspect the Abortionist tries to pretend to be some sweet nice lovable person to the victim mother - instead of showing their true self as the baby murderer which they really are.

You are trying to do the same thing here in this discussion thread - you are trying to deceive.

If you had a medical profession that was guided by the idea of service to those that have need rather than trying to elicit profit from those that are suffering then you might trust your doctors a bit more.

A lot of us in Britain are proud of our NHS( National Health Service - Free at point of delivery to all those that have need).

We have a minor problem with health 'tourism' (including some from USA) but it is being addressed.

Heretic

Precisely so Heretic, which is why I found Cusick's rather silly and disingenuous generalisation of "the west" nonsense.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I did not say nor imply that the Abortionist does the pressuring, as I suspect the Abortionist tries to pretend to be some sweet nice lovable person to the victim mother - instead of showing their true self as the baby murderer which they really are.

What do you expect from abortion doctors? Do you think that they have horns, fangs, bat-like wings, and a barbed tail? They're just humans like everyone else, and I'm sure many ARE nice and lovable. Just because they perform abortions doesn't mean they should bellow evil supervillain laughs, carry a pitchfork, and really enjoy killing "babies." It's as if you think doctors went into the profession just so they could (muhahahahahaha!) kill "babies."  

What, precisely, is the "true self" of a doctor who performs abortions? I mean, you said yourself that you're not necessarily against abortions, so what's all this "baby murderer" nonsense? As Dr. Sheldon pointed out, this kind of emotive language is designed to manipulate all who read it, and for those smart enough not to be manipulated, it's really quite anger-inducing. We are fully aware that a clump of non-sentient cells is not a BABY.

Using the term "baby" causes people to think of an actual, fully formed and sentient infant lying in a cradle with big eyes and a cute baby-laugh; a fully formed infant playing with toys and cuddling with her little pink blanky.

NO ... no, no, no. Using terms like that is intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

And to use the term "murderer," well, that would be about the same thing as calling a cancer doctor a "murderer" for killing living cancer cells.

I'm all for the idea of disallowing abortions once the pregnancy reaches a certain stage, and most abortion laws have those limits in place. But calling a clump of cells a "baby" is just ridiculous. It's like calling a brick a "house" because one day that brick will be a part of a house.

This of course goes right to the "heart" of the matter. If there is solid scientific medical evidence then our laws must be based on that evidence, not on the beliefs of any individual or group. There's more than enough emotion in abortion as it is, without introducing a new level of it with the kind of hyperbole that Cusick is using.

Bellatori wrote:

stu wrote:Just like calling a wheel a car because one day it is going to be part of a car, my baby daughter is 7years old now but she is still my baby. He calls them babies because it gets a more emotive response, instead of the cells of which they are.

Exactly... the argument has to be emotive because they are losing the argument rationally.

:yeahthat: 

The thing is if we can give a rational argument, why can't they do so too? what is from stopping them?.  

stu wrote:The thing is if we can give a rational argument, why can't they do so too? what is from stopping them?.  

This is not meant to offend, but I'd say that religious belief itself was irrational. Of course many things we do are irrational, or at least not logical, it's only when these actions might harm others that we tend to question this side of our natures. Unless you're an atheist of course, then you tend to question the validity of using the irrational side of our natures to determine truth or knowledge. Epistemological arguments don't even get off the ground with some theists of course, JP and Polyglide deal in absolutes if their posts on here are a reliable yardstick.

So basically what you are saying Sheldon, It is the religion and belief that is stopping them from giving a rational argument?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

stu wrote:The thing is if we can give a rational argument, why can't they do so too? what is from stopping them?.  

This is not meant to offend, but I'd say that religious belief itself was irrational. Of course many things we do are irrational, or at least not logical, it's only when these actions might harm others that we tend to question this side of our natures. Unless you're an atheist of course, then you tend to question the validity of using the irrational side of our natures to determine truth or knowledge. Epistemological arguments don't even get off the ground with some theists of course, JP and Polyglide deal in absolutes if their posts on here are a reliable yardstick.

Yes when religion is invoked but anti-abortionists do have rational arguments at their disposal and it is to their detriment that (often religious) fanatics make the appeal to emotion rather than reason. One argument I tend to agree with is the fact that we now seem to have de facto abortion on demand even though the legislation says that we don't. I am, on the whole against abortion and that is an emotional feeling, BUT I also realise there are circumstances where my personal feelings should not and must not be allowed to override the woman's right to chose BUT that right to chose has to be a mature and honest consideration. I run into a problem when it is clearly an abortion of convenience. Does repugnance at what is a cavalier exercise of choice enable me to over rule a woman's right to chose? In the end probably NO but it causes me some discomfort to think that this happens as it clearly does.

Bellatori wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

stu wrote:The thing is if we can give a rational argument, why can't they do so too? what is from stopping them?.  

This is not meant to offend, but I'd say that religious belief itself was irrational. Of course many things we do are irrational, or at least not logical, it's only when these actions might harm others that we tend to question this side of our natures. Unless you're an atheist of course, then you tend to question the validity of using the irrational side of our natures to determine truth or knowledge. Epistemological arguments don't even get off the ground with some theists of course, JP and Polyglide deal in absolutes if their posts on here are a reliable yardstick.

Yes when religion is invoked but anti-abortionists do have rational arguments at their disposal and it is to their detriment that (often religious) fanatics make the appeal to emotion rather than reason. One argument I tend to agree with is the fact that we now seem to have de facto abortion on demand even though the legislation says that we don't. I am, on the whole against abortion and that is an emotional feeling, BUT I also realise there are circumstances where my personal feelings should not and must not be allowed to override the woman's right to chose BUT that right to chose has to be a mature and honest consideration. I run into a problem when it is clearly an abortion of convenience. Does repugnance at what is a cavalier exercise of choice enable me to over rule a woman's right to chose? In the end probably NO but it causes me some discomfort to think that this happens as it clearly does.

This is precisely what I meant when I told both JP Cusick and polyglide that they don't help their cause with emotive hyperbole. There is nothing in your post to disagree with to be honest B.

Bellatori, you have yourself a bit of a problem in the end do you not?, as you have to allow your head to rule over your heart don't you. You are probably more religious than you think my friend judging by your posts, as they do not always seem the posts of an atheist (no offence meant). Now myself and I will probably get some flak for it? go basically by what the law states, so if an abortion is allowed up until a certain point so be it. Although I would prefer it not to be, one cannot do anything about it as such unless your mp votes to bring the age down of when the child can be aborted.

stu wrote:So basically what you are saying Sheldon, It is the religion and belief that is stopping them from giving a rational argument?

Yes stu, I find generally theists can't put aside dogma or emotion on this and some other issues. It's one thing to feel emotional about a subject, that applies to us all to a greater or lesser degree, but it behoves us to devolve that emotion as much as possible and use reasoned and rational debate.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

stu wrote:So basically what you are saying Sheldon, It is the religion and belief that is stopping them from giving a rational argument?

Yes stu, I find generally theists can't put aside dogma or emotion on this and some other issues. It's one thing to feel emotional about a subject, that applies to us all to a greater or lesser degree, but it behoves us to devolve that emotion as much as possible and use reasoned and rational debate.

Well let us not talk about emotion which has negative connotations and talk instead about the human heart. The human heart has a way of seeing things that just doesn't make sense otherwise. I have one example in mind although I'm sure you can come up with many of your own. My example is all about a piglet and not the one from Winnie the Pooh, this piglet lived on a farm that was part of a commune. While this piglet was tiny it got badly injured when it's mother rolled over onto it, this caused a great many injuries and the piglet nearly died. When the farmer saw what had happened he realised that the pens that the sows were kept in were not big enough and that is why the piglet got injured. This farmer immediately called the vet and said that everything that could be done should be done to save this little piglet. Vets are not stupid and know that once the economic consequences of the treatment is pointed out to farmers they quickly get over their guilt and dispatch the animal in double quick time. This vet made the expected protestations but the farmer stood his ground, this cycle went round a couple of times and it was not until the farmer said we would phone the vets rival that our little piglet got his treatment, I went back some years later to find that this little piglet had become a giant in the pig pen. The farmer had spent more on that little piglet than could of been expected to fetch at the market full grown (not that the farmer seemed in any hurry to send him to market) and what was even more expensive was the alterations to all the pig pens so that there would not be any such accident in future.

On many levels the actions of the farmer did not make any sense and yet if you ask most people if he did the right thing I think you will find in the majority of groups the answer will be yes.

Our decisions cannot be left to just logic or just our minds, sometimes our hearts need to overrule our minds, it's part of what makes us human.

Heretic

Heretic wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

stu wrote:So basically what you are saying Sheldon, It is the religion and belief that is stopping them from giving a rational argument?

Yes stu, I find generally theists can't put aside dogma or emotion on this and some other issues. It's one thing to feel emotional about a subject, that applies to us all to a greater or lesser degree, but it behoves us to devolve that emotion as much as possible and use reasoned and rational debate.

Well let us not talk about emotion which has negative connotations and talk instead about the human heart. The human heart has a way of seeing things that just doesn't make sense otherwise. I have one example in mind although I'm sure you can come up with many of your own. My example is all about a piglet and not the one from Winnie the Pooh, this piglet lived on a farm that was part of a commune. While this piglet was tiny it got badly injured when it's mother rolled over onto it, this caused a great many injuries and the piglet nearly died. When the farmer saw what had happened he realised that the pens that the sows were kept in were not big enough and that is why the piglet got injured. This farmer immediately called the vet and said that everything that could be done should be done to save this little piglet. Vets are not stupid and know that once the economic consequences of the treatment is pointed out to farmers they quickly get over their guilt and dispatch the animal in double quick time. This vet made the expected protestations but the farmer stood his ground, this cycle went round a couple of times and it was not until the farmer said we would phone the vets rival that our little piglet got his treatment, I went back some years later to find that this little piglet had become a giant in the pig pen. The farmer had spent more on that little piglet than could of been expected to fetch at the market full grown (not that the farmer seemed in any hurry to send him to market) and what was even more expensive was the alterations to all the pig pens so that there would not be any such accident in future.

On many levels the actions of the farmer did not make any sense and yet if you ask most people if he did the right thing I think you will find in the majority of groups the answer will be yes.

Our decisions cannot be left to just logic or just our minds, sometimes our hearts need to overrule our minds, it's part of what makes us human.

Heretic

I agree, but I have come to be suspicious of theistic traps using semantics, and now try not to use heart when talking about emotion, as it is our brains and intellects that produce emotion as well reason and logic. I don't think we should abandon emotion completely though, I'm not even sure we could if we wanted to anyway. I just think we need to show due deference to logic reason, and do a sanity check before we indulge our emotions. Our instincts are a little more complex as they are hard-wired for want of a better phrase into us. Many of these instincts might well have served us well since before we even became humans in our current form, but in modern societies are not just redundant, but some of them are deeply nefarious. I often think reason and logic is given a bad press as somehow being cold and calculating and even callous, when it needn't be at all.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I agree, but I have come to be suspicious of theistic traps using semantics, and now try not to use heart when talking about emotion, as it is our brains and intellects that produce emotion as well reason and logic. I don't think we should abandon emotion completely though, I'm not even sure we could if we wanted to anyway. I just think we need to show due deference to logic reason, and do a sanity check before we indulge our emotions. Our instincts are a little more complex as they are hard-wired for want of a better phrase into us. Many of these instincts might well have served us well since before we even became humans in our current form, but in modern societies are not just redundant, but some of them are deeply nefarious. I often think reason and logic is given a bad press as somehow being cold and calculating and even callous, when it needn't be at all.

Just because theists misuse emotions and the language or the heart does not mean that we need to take the opposite extreme of only using logic and reason. I think it is more productive to use a holistic approach that involves our emotions as well as reason. It might mean that we have to be even more careful when putting our arguments together but might have the advantage of not appearing to be creatures from outer space to each other. You never know we might even begin to start liking each other (God Forbid!!!)

Heretic

Good evening Heretic, sorry to sound like Mr Spock but I think you will find our human heart is just a collection of emotional traits adapted from our social primate genes, and they are an intrinsic part of our mind, albeit sub-conscious.
The spirit of humanity may not seem logical but in a sense it is, our mind is also an adaptation of our genetic instructions, a form of collective intent on our emotional/psychological well being as against mere physical survival.
The spirit of humanity is an emotional construct adopted by our minds to elevate the significance of our existence, an adaptation of status seeking, the contents of this spirit are built around traits such as empathy, sympathy, compassion and love, adapted from our genetic instructions to nurture and socialise.

Morality is based on sub conscious reason, conflict avoidance is our biggest survival tool, the spirit of humanity is an essential concept that enables the circle of empathy to expand beyond our genetic relatives.
The greatest gift of evolution is our ability to emotionally put ourselves into the shoes of others, to feel what others feel, the spirit of humanity is a moral distinction between us and the rest of life, one that must be protected.
Morality( right and wrong) is based on two reasonable principles, well being and harm, in plain terms, what is good for you but not bad for others, the spirit of humanity is an emotional concept that encompasses these two principles.

Does abortion contradict the spirit of humanity? I think the answer must be yes. Does it damage it severely? No, not in my opinion.

Morality is a tricky business, especially if you are trying to accommodate two absolute principles of well being and doing no harm, they often conflict, its an ideal.

Heretic wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I agree, but I have come to be suspicious of theistic traps using semantics, and now try not to use heart when talking about emotion, as it is our brains and intellects that produce emotion as well reason and logic. I don't think we should abandon emotion completely though, I'm not even sure we could if we wanted to anyway. I just think we need to show due deference to logic reason, and do a sanity check before we indulge our emotions. Our instincts are a little more complex as they are hard-wired for want of a better phrase into us. Many of these instincts might well have served us well since before we even became humans in our current form, but in modern societies are not just redundant, but some of them are deeply nefarious. I often think reason and logic is given a bad press as somehow being cold and calculating and even callous, when it needn't be at all.

Just because theists misuse emotions and the language or the heart does not mean that we need to take the opposite extreme of only using logic and reason. I think it is more productive to use a holistic approach that involves our emotions as well as reason. It might mean that we have to be even more careful when putting our arguments together but might have the advantage of not appearing to be creatures from outer space to each other. You never know we might even begin to start liking each other (God Forbid!!!)

Heretic

That's a reasonable point, but isn't the whole point of the internet to indulge puerile squabbles with strangers?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but isn't the whole point of the internet to indulge puerile squabbles with strangers?

But ... but ... I thought it was for porn.  

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but isn't the whole point of the internet to indulge puerile squabbles with strangers?

But ... but ... I thought it was for porn.    

Ah well you're a woman, and you can multi-task and stuff.  

Tosh wrote:Good evening Heretic, sorry to sound like Mr Spock but I think you will find our human heart is just a collection of emotional traits adapted from our social primate genes

The heart simply pumps blood. No emotions are formed in the heart.

I find the terminology interesting because we still use this word to separate logic from emotion - a throwback to a time when people had no idea that emotions come from the same place as logic: The brain.

Unfortunately, I have actually heard Christians (who refuse to believe that emotions are just chemical reactions) claim that the heart - yeah, the actual human heart - forms our emotions. Damn, we just seem to get dumber every day.

Now, I'm not knocking people who use the term "heart" to make the distinction between logic and emotion (I do it too, sometimes), but it just struck me as odd that we still cling to the terminology even when it is so decidely inaccurate.

The heart simply pumps blood. No emotions are formed in the heart.

I am pleased you informed me of this fact, I was under the impression our heart was our brain.

I see where your coming from and I sort of agree but only in part.

Many of the achievements of mankind are as a result in part of the rational approach that we have in problem solving. Many instances where those achievements would not of been possible without the emotional intelligence required to "put aside the needs of the individual for the good of the many" (I had to get that in). We are spending a great deal in the physical sciences to gain more and more knowledge about the very big and the very small, such has been the triumph of the mind over the heart. Yet we are beginning to see progress in the emotional sciences psychology, psychiatry, sociology, politics and the scientific method is beginning to be used with good results in these areas. I have yet to begin it but I have a copy of the Geek Manifesto on my book shelf and I suspect it will have insights into how science and politics could benefit each other (I suspect we might need a great deal of emotional oversight in that relationship). Just over 100 years ago we had the insights of Freud but time has moved on and the work of Neuro Linguistic Programming and the work of Richard Bandler and John Grinder is bearing great fruit.

I am sure that there are advocates on both sides and each have their own merits but in our rush to declare a winner we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I suspect that both sides are apt to throw out common sense in the race for honours, perhaps it is up to us non-specialists(we are in the majority [yes majorities can be wrong]) to make sure that common sense is applied when applicable.

Heretic

Heretic,

I see morality from the bottom up, it is irrational to create a society where the most suffering is inflicted on the most number of people, we and our descendants would not survive long with this immoral ethos. So at least we know what we don't want, the opposite of this is to create a society where the least amount of suffering is inflicted on the least number of people, this to me is our goal and it is based on reason.
We are products of our environment and animal genes, we are slowly but surely advancing toward an ideal society of well being devoid of suffering.

Shirina wrote:

Tosh wrote:Good evening Heretic, sorry to sound like Mr Spock but I think you will find our human heart is just a collection of emotional traits adapted from our social primate genes

The heart simply pumps blood. No emotions are formed in the heart.

I find the terminology interesting because we still use this word to separate logic from emotion - a throwback to a time when people had no idea that emotions come from the same place as logic:  The brain.

Unfortunately, I have actually heard Christians (who refuse to believe that emotions are just chemical reactions) claim that the heart - yeah, the actual human heart - forms our emotions. Damn, we just seem to get dumber every day.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:As I said earlier since I have been talking to theists on this kind of site I am finding myself being more and more cautious about the use of certain words, or expressions, I try to avoid the phrase I believe, and especially I believe in, and the use of words like heart in this context, or the word soul or soulless. It's almost pedantry now, but I have had my words used by theists time and again to misrepresent what I am actually saying.

Now, I'm not knocking people who use the term "heart" to make the distinction between logic and emotion (I do it too, sometimes), but it just struck me as odd that we still cling to the terminology even when it is so decidely inaccurate.

Just so, I said the same thing earlier.

Tosh wrote:Heretic,

I see morality from the bottom up, it is irrational to create a society where the most suffering is inflicted on the most number of people, we and our descendants would not survive long with this immoral ethos. So at least we know what we don't want, the opposite of this is to create a society where the least amount of suffering is inflicted on the least number of people, this to me is our goal and it is based on reason.
We are products of our environment and animal genes, we are slowly but surely advancing toward an ideal society of well being devoid of suffering.

I see the same goal in sight and think we will get there sooner rather than later, just too late for me to enjoy. I think a good step in the right direction would be to get rid of money for personal transactions (from each according to their ability, unto each according to their need) while retaining it for commercial transaction between businesses. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to create such a system.

Over and above that I think that the two primary things we need are universal health care free at the point of delivery (see above).

The final step to the beginning of our Utopia is free education and the internet could seriously help out there.

Once we know where we are going and the steps we need to take the actual journey will be almost trivial.

Of course the one group we need to overcome is those that benefit most from the current system.

Heretic

Heretic,

If we are going to create a free society that actually functions we must accommodate individualism( selfishness), it is unrealistic and in my opinion undesirable for us to remove individualism from the spirit of humanity. I believe there must be limits to the community spirit, especially if they are enforced and not freely given.
I believe we would be less diverse and creative, and I am not too keen on the idea that the entire purpose of my life is to sacrifice it for the benefit of humanity, sounds too dogmatic and religious for me.
I am sure we will eventually stumble on a working partnership that accommodates all our desires and needs, the me and the we......assuming some cultures stop breeding like rabbits, their religious convictions are not doing them or us any favours.

Memes are like genes, only the fittest survive, bad ideas inevitably face extinction.

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but isn't the whole point of the internet to indulge puerile squabbles with strangers?

But ... but ... I thought it was for porn.    

is the porn where we start off or end up?