30% of GOP Presidential Candidates do NOT believe in Evolution

[Damocles]

Wait a minute here. To return to one of my favorite analogies, an acorn "has all it needs" to develop into an oak tree, but it is clearly not an oak tree. A chicken's egg is not a chicken, yet it is a self-contained system for producing a chicken. You have not demonstrated how the conclusion follows from the premise.

Unlike a chicken's egg, a human zygote cannot develop into a complete human being independently. It requires constant life support from a female human donor to develop. It is genetically complete but that's just one arbitrary point in the development of a new person.

The organism inside a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken. In an early stage of development, but it is no other organism. This idea that it is "some other" thing because they name the stage differently defies science. Now, that requirement may be changed in the future, but the chicken, at this stage, also needs constant support, that it gets it from the egg and from incubation doesn't change that it needs more than to "just be".

Any more than the infant would need constant support.

That it must be incubated doesn't change what it is. It only changes the idea of "rights". Since at this time we cannot ex-utero incubate a human, the rights of the woman who must incubate them must be considered.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

The organism inside a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken. In an early stage of development, but it is no other organism. This idea that it is "some other" thing because they name the stage differently defies science. Now, that requirement may be changed in the future, but the chicken, at this stage, also needs constant support, that it gets it from the egg and from incubation doesn't change that it needs more than to "just be".

Not so. It both is and is not a chicken -- and no, that's no paradox. It is a chicken, but it is also a chicken embryo and a chicken's egg. When it hatches it ceases to be a chicken's egg. Before hatching, it is indisputably a chicken's egg but it is not a completely developed chicken.

A caterpiler is not a butterfly. It can and will become one, but it is not one yet. An infant is not a teenager, yet she can and will become one, with a little luck. Unless LadyT gets her alone, that is.

You choose to emphasize the one aspect, the species of the organism, no matter how counter-intuitive that may be, because is suits your personal agenda. For you, the simple fact that the embryo is not a fully developed organism seems to be unimportant. I admit that this fact completely baffles me but it appears to be true. C'est le vie. That this fact is unimportant to you does not render it unimportant in any objective sense and does not mean that it is unimportant to other people.

Natural language, for all its many faults, can provide good insights into the way people in general really see the world. The words "fetus," "baby," "infant," "toddler," "teenager," "adult" and "decrepit old hippie" all exist because these stages of life have great meaning. A teenager is NOT a baby: they are two different things.

Any more than the infant would need constant support.

Actually, human infants do need constant support.

That it must be incubated doesn't change what it is. It only changes the idea of "rights". Since at this time we cannot ex-utero incubate a human, the rights of the woman who must incubate them must be considered.

I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning by which you reached it. So, what else is new?

 

[Lao Tse]

An incompletely developed chicken is still a chicken. Hence the need to add the modifiers "incompletely developed" to convey your meaning.

You're an idiot ornot.

 

[Damocles]

Not so. It both is and is not a chicken -- and no, that's no paradox. It is a chicken, but it is also a chicken embryo and a chicken's egg. When it hatches it ceases to be a chicken's egg. Before hatching, it is indisputably a chicken's egg but it is not a completely developed chicken.

LOL. This is ridiculous, "a chicken's embryo".

Seriously, this is like saying that because we call it an "infant" it isn't a human, it is only "a human's infant". Stages of life do not change what an organism is, they only describe the condition of the organism.

The entire "egg" is not the chicken, it is the organism inside that egg that is. "A chicken's embryo" is another developing chicken who, given the right conditions inside that Ovum, will continue to go through other stages in the life of the chicken.

A caterpiler is not a butterfly.


It can and will become one, but it is not one yet. An infant is not a teenager, yet she can and will become one, with a little luck. Unless LadyT gets her alone, that is.

LOL. This is hilarious too. It is one stage in that organisms life, you are once again attempting to apply stages as "species". It isn't. The larval stage of a butterfly doesn't change what it is. So here, if you must know... The Caterpillar isn't a different species from the butterfly, it is simply it's larval stage...

http://butterflybushes.com/monarch_metamorphosis.htm

You choose to emphasize the one aspect, the species of the organism, no matter how counter-intuitive that may be, because is suits your personal agenda. For you, the simple fact that the embryo is not a fully developed organism seems to be unimportant. I admit that this fact completely baffles me but it appears to be true. C'est le vie. That this fact is unimportant to you does not render it unimportant in any objective sense and does not mean that it is unimportant to other people.

No, I choose to emphasize the facts of the matter. Each stage of life is named, but they never do change the species of the life. It isn't a personal agenda, it is reality. That the Embryo isn't fully developed was well-acknowledged in my previous posts, that you ignored it was simply a regular pattern of yours. The attempt to change the species of a lifeform because of a different stage of life is patently ridiculous and simply spits into the face of science.

Natural language, for all its many faults, can provide good insights into the way people in general really see the world. The words "fetus," "baby," "infant," "toddler," "teenager," "adult" and "decrepit old hippie" all exist because these stages of life have great meaning. A teenager is NOT a baby: they are two different things.

I did not deny this, in fact I wallowed in it. I even stated that because of the stage of life one may or may not consider an Embryo to be a "person" depending on their position in this matter.

Actually, human infants do need constant support.
I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning by which you reached it. So, what else is new?

You didn't read my reasoning as evidenced by my responses above.

 

[uscitizen]

But which one came first ? ......

 

[Damocles]

But which one came first ? ......

Clearly the egg came first.

 

[Thorn]

Clearly the egg came first.

Yes? And where did it come from?

 

[Damocles]

Yes? And where did it come from?

From whatever species evolved into the Chicken.

 

[Thorn]

From whatever species evolved into the Chicken.

Actually, that's the biologically correct answer.

BTW, did anyone see the article yesterday about the primate ancestor? Seems that the complex brain development enjoyed by contemporary primates, including humans, didn't take place quite as early as previously thought. An intact brain case (cranium) of this creature was recently discovered, and indications are that the brain not only was quite small, but also was fairly primitive in nature. I'm going only on the release to the popular press, but I assume that this means many fewer folds in the cortex, suggesting simple functioning. Fascinating!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

LOL. This is ridiculous, "a chicken's embryo".

Seriously, this is like saying that because we call it an "infant" it isn't a human, it is only "a human's infant". Stages of life do not change what an organism is, they only describe the condition of the organism.

The entire "egg" is not the chicken, it is the organism inside that egg that is. "A chicken's embryo" is another developing chicken who, given the right conditions inside that Ovum, will continue to go through other stages in the life of the chicken.




LOL. This is hilarious too. It is one stage in that organisms life, you are once again attempting to apply stages as "species". It isn't. The larval stage of a butterfly doesn't change what it is. So here, if you must know... The Caterpillar isn't a different species from the butterfly, it is simply it's larval stage...

http://butterflybushes.com/monarch_metamorphosis.htm




No, I choose to emphasize the facts of the matter. Each stage of life is named, but they never do change the species of the life. It isn't a personal agenda, it is reality. That the Embryo isn't fully developed was well-acknowledged in my previous posts, that you ignored it was simply a regular pattern of yours. The attempt to change the species of a lifeform because of a different stage of life is patently ridiculous and simply spits into the face of science.



I did not deny this, in fact I wallowed in it. I even stated that because of the stage of life one may or may not consider an Embryo to be a "person" depending on their position in this matter.



You didn't read my reasoning as evidenced by my responses above.

As I pointed out earlier, it is you who is hung up on species. To me, species is not entirely relevant to this discussion.

You do realize, I trust, that species classification gets to be a bit iffy in some families? No, that's not a dig at AssHat or Dixie: I'm talking about taxonomic families. In reality, genes are all there are. Species exist pretty much only as abstractions for human consumption.

Now, obviously, chickens are not hard to classify. Still, the fact is that species isn't necessarily the most relevant criterion. It is to you but that's your personal preference.

 

[Battleborne]

'Pseudo Analogy'...

Wait a minute here. To return to one of my favorite analogies, an acorn "has all it needs" to develop into an oak tree, but it is clearly not an oak tree. A chicken's egg is not a chicken, yet it is a self-contained system for producing a chicken. You have not demonstrated how the conclusion follows from the premise.

Unlike a chicken's egg, a human zygote cannot develop into a complete human being independently. It requires constant life support from a female human donor to develop. It is genetically complete but that's just one arbitrary point in the development of a new person.

Human beings are the most complex entities found in the animal world...so in your opinion humans are not humans until they have left the womb...hummm...does this mean the mother should cut them loose once they enter the world...how many years must pass before they can survive on their own??? This is a rediculous analogy onort...the age of reason in human beings has been established at seven years...yet can a seven year old survive without continued life support...I think not!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Human beings are the most complex entities found in the animal world...so in your opinion humans are not humans until they have left the womb...hummm...does this mean the mother should cut them loose once they enter the world...how many years must pass before they can survive on their own??? This is a rediculous analogy onort...the age of reason in human beings has been established at seven years...yet can a seven year old survive without continued life support...I think not!

I don't know whether to call this a strawman or just a bale of straw.

The relevant question is not whether a human zygote is "human." The relevant question is whether or not it is a person.

 

[Damocles]

As I pointed out earlier, it is you who is hung up on species. To me, species is not entirely relevant to this discussion.

You do realize, I trust, that species classification gets to be a bit iffy in some families? No, that's not a dig at AssHat or Dixie: I'm talking about taxonomic families. In reality, genes are all there are. Species exist pretty much only as abstractions for human consumption.

Now, obviously, chickens are not hard to classify. Still, the fact is that species isn't necessarily the most relevant criterion. It is to you but that's your personal preference.

Actually, I have gone into this long-winded discussion on species to turn the discussion to "person". My point is, the species of the lifeform does not make it a person as of yet. That it is a human life does not necessarily mean it is yet a person. We would disagree on the whole idea that it is okay to end the potential of that lifeform because it is not yet a person.

It is my contention that it is the potential of the human life on which we base its value. When you murder another you have taken from them and all of those closest to them their potential interaction. This is what they will miss.

That we sometimes end human life after deliberation in courts doesn't change that it is the potential that we are working with. Their actions were such that their potential was deemed less than positive. (This does not mean that I promote the death penalty, it just explains it more in depth than "what's the difference you are taking life?")

For me the comparison comes there. For others the comparison of potential can only be made once the life can be held in hands rather than in a uterus. This is what I have been working towards, an explanation of my beliefs on the subject. First I have to get all the extemporaneous ideas out of the way. The idea that an organism is other than what it is because of a life stage descriptor is simply ridiculous.

 

[Battleborne]

Hummm...

I don't know whether to call this a strawman or just a bale of straw.

The relevant question is not whether a human zygote is "human." The relevant question is whether or not it is a person.

Well it is a 'person' once the egg and sperm lock together...constant life support of the "Human" species is needed for many years... during pregnancy thru delivery and many more years after the fact! This is just another argument supporting abortion and has nothing whatsoever to do with biological fact,reason or just plain common sense(I know 'Common Sense' is a oxymoron) just thru it in to show how silly these arguments are! And no this is not a "Strawman" argument just a factual interpretation of what is being discussed!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Well it is a 'person' once the egg and sperm lock together...constant life support of the "Human" species is needed for many years... during pregnancy thru delivery and many more years after the fact! This is just another argument supporting abortion and has nothing whatsoever to do with biological fact,reason or just plain common sense(I know 'Common Sense' is a oxymoron) just thru it in to show how silly these arguments are! And no this is not a "Strawman" argument just a factual interpretation of what is being discussed!

It is your opinion that it becomes a person at the moment of conception. That is only an opinion, however. Personhood and species are two entirely different things.

As I said to Ass on another thread, I do not make a categorical statement on this question at all. I think it should be decided on a purely individual basis: not all zygotes but this particular one here. Which is, in turn, why I want to keep it a matter for individual moral conscience.

 

[Lao Tse]

It is your opinion that it becomes a person at the moment of conception. That is only an opinion, however. Personhood and species are two entirely different things.

As I said to Ass on another thread, I do not make a categorical statement on this question at all. I think it should be decided on a purely individual basis: not all zygotes but this particular one here. Which is, in turn, why I want to keep it a matter for individual moral conscience.

And it's just your opinion that it's not a person.

 

[Battleborne]

Okay Professor...

It is your opinion that it becomes a person at the moment of conception. That is only an opinion, however. Personhood and species are two entirely different things.

As I said to Ass on another thread, I do not make a categorical statement on this question at all. I think it should be decided on a purely individual basis: not all zygotes but this particular one here. Which is, in turn, why I want to keep it a matter for individual moral conscience.

Going back to Biology 101...when a species is conceived...the moment the egg and sperm bonds...since humans are considered the highest species...does this mean they are not a person until they leave the womb and can run free...silly analogy about "When" professor...! Facts are the result of opinions being tested....my opinion has already been tested...and yours???

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Actually, I have gone into this long-winded discussion on species to turn the discussion to "person". My point is, the species of the lifeform does not make it a person as of yet. That it is a human life does not necessarily mean it is yet a person. We would disagree on the whole idea that it is okay to end the potential of that lifeform because it is not yet a person.

It is my contention that it is the potential of the human life on which we base its value. When you murder another you have taken from them and all of those closest to them their potential interaction. This is what they will miss.

That we sometimes end human life after deliberation in courts doesn't change that it is the potential that we are working with. Their actions were such that their potential was deemed less than positive. (This does not mean that I promote the death penalty, it just explains it more in depth than "what's the difference you are taking life?")

For me the comparison comes there. For others the comparison of potential can only be made once the life can be held in hands rather than in a uterus. This is what I have been working towards, an explanation of my beliefs on the subject. First I have to get all the extemporaneous ideas out of the way. The idea that an organism is other than what it is because of a life stage descriptor is simply ridiculous.

I'm not going to go on with this any further because I'm getting sucked into another abortion debate and I hate abortion debates. They tend to make me angry and I dislike getting angry. OTOH, your post is reasonable and deserves an answer. So, one last post and then I'm off this thread.

We are dealing with two separate questions here. One is the moral decision an individual -- a woman, in this case -- might make about a particular embryo or fetus. The other is the ethical and legal question of what behavior do we allow and what do we prohibit. I'm solely interested in the latter: the former takes care of itself, in my view.

The legal question can't be reduced to a discussion of potential, I don't believe. It's a question of individual rights and freedom. Given our legal and ethical heritage, there is only one question we can ask: at what point does the developing fetus gain legal personhood and the protection of law?

I, personally, prefer to keep the government out of it until such time that consensus is clear and irrefutable. Very few people wouldn't give a 35 or 36 week fetus legal status, for example: I'm quite willing to concede that consensus exists there.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Simply put it is Ornot's assertion that personhood should not be granted upon reaching the state of being human but rather be determined by the state at some other arbitrary point prior to which should be determined by the individual.

However Ornots position is not that different from anyone elses. Its just where the line of demarcation is drawn. Arguments like this are best argued about where the line should be drawn and the strength of the supporting facts for it. Only people who don't believe in any protection of rights would be exempt from this classification.

 

[IHateGovernment]

I, personally, prefer to keep the government out of it until such time that consensus is clear and irrefutable. Very few people wouldn't give a 35 or 36 week fetus legal status, for example: I'm quite willing to concede that consensus exists there.

Concensus alone is a dangerous criteria to use. Would you accept the practices of a society that permitted enfanticide if that society accepted it by concensus?