APP - Proof That God Exists

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, I have been around long enough to know your position on this topic, even your next reply, it is finally your position and while it may give you comfort, it is not shared by everyone.

I've not really stated my position much, I only posted the OP and made the argument. You may say the argument is my position, but the argument is made on sound logic and reasoning, and unless you can refute it, is valid on it's on, regardless of my position. So far, you and the others have offered nothing to refute what was stated in the OP, and I don't think you can... therefore; you attempt to pretend the argument is simply "Dixie's position" and you don't have to agree.

But I'll offer an alternative view. If gawd cannot be proven to exist, then religion cannot be anything more than the words and desires of men.

Wait a sec... "Gawd" can't be proven to exist with physical science, but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual proof, or proof outside the bounds of science. (or inside, for that matter.) In fact, it is a bit preposterous to think that because "physical science" can't explain a "supernatural entity" that it must not be possible. That actually demonstrates a closed-mindedness that is the ANTITHESIS of science. Einstein's Theory was thought to be impossible, the term "Big Bang" was coined as an INSULT to the preposterous theory! I can compare it to the other side of the spectrum with an individual who refuses to accept any 'physical science' or any other understanding besides 'spiritual faith', who believes "Gawd" makes it rain. If he closes his mind to the possibility that science can explain the rain, how is he any different than you?

You see, that is the whole entire point of the OP. To set the context for the question itself. IF we ask; Does "God Exist?," it is silly and superfluous to use the context of "physical science" and the "physical world," since obviously, a God would not be a physical entity, rather a spiritual one. In order to properly evaluate the question, we have to put it in context and understand what the terms mean. "Exist" doesn't mean, in a physical sense, it can't. God is a supernatural entity, of course He doesn't exist in a physical sense. So "existence" has to be determined on merit, and we are examining a spiritual entity, therefore, "spiritual proofs" are what is needed. Again, "spiritual proofs" require a great deal of "spiritual faith" which can be as strong (if not stronger) than faith in science.

If gawd is thrown out, we are on our own in deciding the moment potential life becomes person.

That is true, and it's what we have done. With the help of the SCOTUS, we have determined that a woman's right to privacy and choice, are more valuable as a right, than the right of the living human organism inside her to live. Some will argue that "personhood" doesn't emerge until the second trimester, others will argue that nervous systems are already formed, and pain is felt. No one that I have ever known, except for apple, has argued the fetus is not a living organism.

An organism is a form of life: plants, animals, and fungus are all organisms. If the environment is not right they cease to be. So it is with all life, if unsupported it ceases to be. Very much like the birth control pill or other contraceptive methods. So while you can feel life begins at some early point of potential growth, another person, no less sincere, may feel human life begins later in the development stage. Life begins when we want it to begin, isn't that what every married couple or parent does in life? They decide when an act of great responsibility can be made. The creation of a human should not be taken lightly. Humans are the moral actors in this play not biology.

Well, no... LIFE does not begin when we want it to begin, unless you are apple. LIFE as determined by science in definition of a living organism, is very well-defined. We know precisely when it begins, there is not a doubt in our minds. If there is growth, there is an organism responsible, science is pretty clear on this. It's not a "feeling" because it's a scientifically and biologically provable fact.

But here's where I switch sides and (partly) agree with you that life should be respected and given every opportunity to live a reasonably nice existence. But not just as cells, but as a fully formed person from day one till time stops for them. And that is why I call so called pro-life people hypocrites for it is only at this early stage that the moral meter sounds an alarm, after the actual person arrives the morality goes cold and stays cold.

I think you are wrong here too. I am as morally accountable as you, I just believe in a totally different approach. You believe in a system of statism which enslaves the poor to a life of poverty and dependence, and I believe in floating all boats. You believe Government is the solution to our problems, and I believe Government IS our problem. You think "entitlements" help people, I think "opportunity" helps people.

"But voters seem to have rejected “personhood” for a different reason — legally redefining a “person” would not only criminalize all abortion but would probably outlaw hormonal forms of birth control as well. Hormonal contraceptives generally prevent an egg from being fertilized in the first place, but the at-least-theoretical possibility that they might also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus was enough to raise the specter of birth control pills being viewed as an instrument of homicide." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...irth-control/2012/02/10/gIQAbZ734Q_story.html

Again, we have to remain honest with science. Just because some people are extreme, is no reason to abandon science and refuse to acknowledge a living human organism. I don't think most Americans are unreasonable on this, I think most of us can agree on some ground-rules and conditions, without having full-bore abortion on demand for the sake of birth control and vanity. Some of us, because of our ties to religious beliefs, can't make any exceptions, and I can respect that, but the vast majority of us fall somewhere in between. There is absolutely NO reason we can't work together toward a suitable and acceptable compromise on this issue, EXCEPT for the fact that Liberals want to completely balk at science, refuse to even acknowledge when a living organism exists, and proclaim the SCOTUS as final arbiter forever, regarding a woman's right to choose.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

First thing is; It's not the 1950s anymore. You're talking about a time when girls were shunned by their families if they wore skirts above their knees, much less have an out-of-wedlock baby! We no longer live in those times, so to make social comparisons is absolutely ridiculous and should be discarded as such. Since the passage of Roe v Wade, there have been over 50 million abortions performed. That rivals the numbers of Mao, Stalin, and PolPot, in terms of how many people socialists have killed.

 

[apple0154]

With the help of the SCOTUS, we have determined that a woman's right to privacy and choice, are more valuable as a right, than the right of the living human organism inside her to live. Some will argue that "personhood" doesn't emerge until the second trimester, others will argue that nervous systems are already formed, and pain is felt. No one that I have ever known, except for apple, has argued the fetus is not a living organism.

I have argued that unique DNA doesn’t determine a fetus is a distinct human being just because its DNA is different from the women in which it resides. The woman may have body parts which differ from the majority of DNA of which she is composed. For example, her liver or kidney may possess different DNA. That does not mean her liver or kidney is a distinct human being and other such erroneous conclusions regarding DNA has resulted in governments attempting to deny a biological mother a right to her children.

So, material residing inside a woman possessing different, unique DNA does not prove that material is a human being. Let’s at least get that nonsense out of the conversation.

Well, no... LIFE does not begin when we want it to begin, unless you are apple. LIFE as determined by science in definition of a living organism, is very well-defined. We know precisely when it begins, there is not a doubt in our minds. If there is growth, there is an organism responsible, science is pretty clear on this. It's not a "feeling" because it's a scientifically and biologically provable fact.

More nonsense. Science has no idea what the growth is. Science has no idea the contents of the cells that are produced because 50% of them spontaneously abort for no known reason. The absurdity is believing human beings come into existence and half of them die within hours/days when science has absolutely no idea what those cells are composed of other than human material. Compounding the tragedy people in their ignorance jump on the DNA wagon and proceed to elevate the value of those unknown cells to that of a human being thereby lowering the value of women to a clump of unknown cells.

Again, there is no provable fact. It is simply a group of people agreeing on a designation of something of which they know very little.

I think you are wrong here too. I am as morally accountable as you, I just believe in a totally different approach. You believe in a system of statism which enslaves the poor to a life of poverty and dependence, and I believe in floating all boats. You believe Government is the solution to our problems, and I believe Government IS our problem. You think "entitlements" help people, I think "opportunity" helps people.

More craziness. The obvious answer is to ask people which approach they find more helpful. Who knows better than those who require the help. This is just like the hearings on woman’s health. Not one woman was present. Let the unemployed and needy tell us what works better as they are the ones requiring the help.

Again, we have to remain honest with science. Just because some people are extreme, is no reason to abandon science and refuse to acknowledge a living human organism. I don't think most Americans are unreasonable on this, I think most of us can agree on some ground-rules and conditions, without having full-bore abortion on demand for the sake of birth control and vanity. Some of us, because of our ties to religious beliefs, can't make any exceptions, and I can respect that, but the vast majority of us fall somewhere in between. There is absolutely NO reason we can't work together toward a suitable and acceptable compromise on this issue, EXCEPT for the fact that Liberals want to completely balk at science, refuse to even acknowledge when a living organism exists, and proclaim the SCOTUS as final arbiter forever, regarding a woman's right to choose.

It’s called common sense with a good dose of logic. As noted previous the definition of organism does not fit a fetus. The “unit” cannot carry on the processes of life without being physically attached to a human being and using that human being’s organs and bodily functions. The most obvious example is pre-mature births result in the baby’s lungs not developed. The so-called organism does not have the ability to carry on the processes of life and, most important, never had that ability. That vital function was carried out by the woman’s body, a function absolutely necessary to carry on the processes of life, a function which the fetus was unable to accomplish.

Shortly after birth, from the first breath, blood flow starts to change direction and certain veins carrying blood to various organs atrophy and become cords which hold the organs in place. Do you have the slightest concept of what that means? Do you have any idea what happens when blood flow through veins is stopped or changes direction? To imply something is a human being before it’s born when after birth the blood flow is fundamentally altered resulting in veins atrophying is absurd. If that happened to a human being serious damage, if not death, would result.

First thing is; It's not the 1950s anymore. You're talking about a time when girls were shunned by their families if they wore skirts above their knees, much less have an out-of-wedlock baby! We no longer live in those times, so to make social comparisons is absolutely ridiculous and should be discarded as such.

No, we don’t live in those times. We live in times when we couldn’t care less about people, in general. We see the help single mothers receive today. We see the poverty that results when single mothers can’t get help with something as basic as babysitting so they can attend school and get an education. Furthermore, we don’t give a damn about the children…..Oh, maybe I spoke too soon. One Republican Presidential Candidate suggested we could put those kids to work as school janitors. It’s been described as giving them an education and a job at the same time. The compassion and empathy is overwhelming.

It's obvious you're unable to grasp the most basic concepts. If bearing children was preferable to abortion there would be little need for abortion. Women witness what has happened to other women who bore children they didn't want. They've seen the resulting poverty along with the neglect of the children. Simply put, they've seen the hell that resulted. If you want to change the situation regarding abortion start by changing the hell that results from not having one. Surely you can grasp that logic.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I've not really stated my position much, I only posted the OP and made the argument. You may say the argument is my position, but the argument is made on sound logic and reasoning, and unless you can refute it, is valid on it's on, regardless of my position. So far, you and the others have offered nothing to refute what was stated in the OP, and I don't think you can... therefore; you attempt to pretend the argument is simply "Dixie's position" and you don't have to agree.



Wait a sec... "Gawd" can't be proven to exist with physical science, but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual proof, or proof outside the bounds of science. (or inside, for that matter.) In fact, it is a bit preposterous to think that because "physical science" can't explain a "supernatural entity" that it must not be possible. That actually demonstrates a closed-mindedness that is the ANTITHESIS of science. Einstein's Theory was thought to be impossible, the term "Big Bang" was coined as an INSULT to the preposterous theory! I can compare it to the other side of the spectrum with an individual who refuses to accept any 'physical science' or any other understanding besides 'spiritual faith', who believes "Gawd" makes it rain. If he closes his mind to the possibility that science can explain the rain, how is he any different than you?

You see, that is the whole entire point of the OP. To set the context for the question itself. IF we ask; Does "God Exist?," it is silly and superfluous to use the context of "physical science" and the "physical world," since obviously, a God would not be a physical entity, rather a spiritual one. In order to properly evaluate the question, we have to put it in context and understand what the terms mean. "Exist" doesn't mean, in a physical sense, it can't. God is a supernatural entity, of course He doesn't exist in a physical sense. So "existence" has to be determined on merit, and we are examining a spiritual entity, therefore, "spiritual proofs" are what is needed. Again, "spiritual proofs" require a great deal of "spiritual faith" which can be as strong (if not stronger) than faith in science.



That is true, and it's what we have done. With the help of the SCOTUS, we have determined that a woman's right to privacy and choice, are more valuable as a right, than the right of the living human organism inside her to live. Some will argue that "personhood" doesn't emerge until the second trimester, others will argue that nervous systems are already formed, and pain is felt. No one that I have ever known, except for apple, has argued the fetus is not a living organism.



Well, no... LIFE does not begin when we want it to begin, unless you are apple. LIFE as determined by science in definition of a living organism, is very well-defined. We know precisely when it begins, there is not a doubt in our minds. If there is growth, there is an organism responsible, science is pretty clear on this. It's not a "feeling" because it's a scientifically and biologically provable fact.



I think you are wrong here too. I am as morally accountable as you, I just believe in a totally different approach. You believe in a system of statism which enslaves the poor to a life of poverty and dependence, and I believe in floating all boats. You believe Government is the solution to our problems, and I believe Government IS our problem. You think "entitlements" help people, I think "opportunity" helps people.



Again, we have to remain honest with science. Just because some people are extreme, is no reason to abandon science and refuse to acknowledge a living human organism. I don't think most Americans are unreasonable on this, I think most of us can agree on some ground-rules and conditions, without having full-bore abortion on demand for the sake of birth control and vanity. Some of us, because of our ties to religious beliefs, can't make any exceptions, and I can respect that, but the vast majority of us fall somewhere in between. There is absolutely NO reason we can't work together toward a suitable and acceptable compromise on this issue, EXCEPT for the fact that Liberals want to completely balk at science, refuse to even acknowledge when a living organism exists, and proclaim the SCOTUS as final arbiter forever, regarding a woman's right to choose.



First thing is; It's not the 1950s anymore. You're talking about a time when girls were shunned by their families if they wore skirts above their knees, much less have an out-of-wedlock baby! We no longer live in those times, so to make social comparisons is absolutely ridiculous and should be discarded as such. Since the passage of Roe v Wade, there have been over 50 million abortions performed. That rivals the numbers of Mao, Stalin, and PolPot, in terms of how many people socialists have killed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Originally Posted by Dixie
With the help of the SCOTUS, we have determined that a woman's right to privacy and choice, are more valuable as a right, than the right of the living human organism inside her to live. Some will argue that "personhood" doesn't emerge until the second trimester, others will argue that nervous systems are already formed, and pain is felt. No one that I have ever known, except for apple, has argued the fetus is not a living organism.

I have argued that unique DNA doesn’t determine a fetus is a distinct human being just because its DNA is different from the women in which it resides. The woman may have body parts which differ from the majority of DNA of which she is composed. For example, her liver or kidney may possess different DNA. That does not mean her liver or kidney is a distinct human being and other such erroneous conclusions regarding DNA has resulted in governments attempting to deny a biological mother a right to her children.

So, material residing inside a woman possessing different, unique DNA does not prove that material is a human being. Let’s at least get that nonsense out of the conversation.

Can anyone other than apple, find anything in the quoted post from me, which says anything about DNA or it being the determining factor in what is an organism? The only place I see DNA in the conversation, is from apple, where he just now mentioned it. DNA does not determine if something is a living organism. It is often used to distinguish a unique organism, but I did not mention DNA, that was introduced into the discussion by apple... so yes, apple, let's get the nonsense out of the conversation... shut your pie hole!!

More nonsense. Science has no idea what the growth is.

Science knows that anything which "grows" has to be a "living organism" because matter doesn't produce matter. I've asked you repeatedly, if the reproduction of human sperm and egg cells are not "human" organisms, what kind do you believe they are? So far, you haven't answered. The fact is, science can be fairly certain, if the organism was created by human cells, it is human.

because 50% of them spontaneously abort for no known reason.

Abort WHAT apple?

It’s called common sense with a good dose of logic.

Wow... something you totally can't relate to!

It's obvious you're unable to grasp the most basic concepts.

I find this statement very ironic indeed.

 

[apple0154]

Can anyone other than apple, find anything in the quoted post from me, which says anything about DNA or it being the determining factor in what is an organism? The only place I see DNA in the conversation, is from apple, where he just now mentioned it. DNA does not determine if something is a living organism. It is often used to distinguish a unique organism, but I did not mention DNA, that was introduced into the discussion by apple... so yes, apple, let's get the nonsense out of the conversation... shut your pie hole!!

The immediate sub-topic is abortion (meaning it's not the main topic of the thread) and DNA and anti-abortionists rely heavily on DNA. In any case, we can put it to the side for the time being.

Science knows that anything which "grows" has to be a "living organism" because matter doesn't produce matter. I've asked you repeatedly, if the reproduction of human sperm and egg cells are not "human" organisms, what kind do you believe they are? So far, you haven't answered. The fact is, science can be fairly certain, if the organism was created by human cells, it is human.

I explained a piece of skin in a lab can and does grow and a piece of skin is not an organism so "grow" does not determine an organism. As I believe you mentioned a virus is not an organism and it "grows" so, again, "grow" does not determine an organism. Just like DNA does not determine an organism. (I knew there was a reason I mentioned DNA.)

As for sperm and egg they are human material which combine to make.....human material. That human material may or may not continue growing. Also, it may grow and produce more human material which spontaneously aborts. The fact is half the time it does abort. Why does it abort? Scientists do not know but it's reasonable to conclude that some of those pieces of human material do not possess the necessary ingredients to become a human being.

That conclusion is not a leap of faith. It is common sense.

Abort WHAT apple?

Human material. The woman's body expels nature's mistakes. We do know that severely genetically damaged embryos and fetuses are expelled from the body, although not all. In some cases the damage is obvious. In others....well, we don't know. It may appear physically correct but we don't know if there is a hidden genetic defect. Stated another way we do not know if the spontaneously aborted embryo or fetus had the necessary ingredients to become a human being.

Conventional wisdom tells us there are approximately 20,000 genes. Over the years that estimate has been all over the map from 100,000 to 18,000. Pick a number. Needless to say if we don't know the exact number of genes how the hell can we determine if something has the necessary genes to become a human being? (Excerpt) The estimates are settling down though, so don't expect as much variation in the future. Zimmer's 18,000 is surely too low, but it's not as far off as other estimates that are casually tossed out in scientific papers. Unfortunately, just as we're settling on a number protein-coding genes, we're finding many new non-protein genes, which means a new debate is just getting started. (End) http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/how_many_genes_do_you_really_have

A whole new debate is starting?!! We know the damage that can result from ONE defective gene and we have 20,0000 and we're finding more!!!

The best analogy I can give is this is like opening a brown bag full of jig-saw puzzle pieces with contents marked "about 20,000 pieces", grabbing a handful or two and then stating with absolute certainty we know all the pieces are there and we know what the picture is. That is, basically, your argument. Nobody knows how many genes we’re supposed to have, what the genes do or what an embryo possesses, yet, you’re claiming, “It’s a human being!”

YOU DON’T KNOW. And neither does anyone else.

On that note it's siesta time.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The immediate sub-topic is abortion (meaning it's not the main topic of the thread) and DNA and anti-abortionists rely heavily on DNA. In any case, we can put it to the side for the time being.

The topic of the thread is God and whether it exists, and has nothing to do with organisms or when they exist. No one 'relies heavily' on DNA defining when an organism exists, unless they are ignorant of science and biology. DNA has absolutely nothing to do with defining when an organism exists.

I explained a piece of skin in a lab can and does grow and a piece of skin is not an organism so "grow" does not determine an organism. As I believe you mentioned a virus is not an organism and it "grows" so, again, "grow" does not determine an organism. Just like DNA does not determine an organism. (I knew there was a reason I mentioned DNA.)

Again... (for the umpteenth time) Skin cells are incapable of reproduction on their own. If they could do that, they WOULD be organisms, but they can't, it's not possible. A virus is not an organism, although science closely relates them to an organism because they do reproduce. A virus, however, is incapable of reproduction on it's own, without appropriate circumstances and conditions, usually (but not always) provided by another living organism. Science has determined conclusively, that a human sperm and egg cell which has reached conception, is NOT a virus. You're really not very bright when it comes to science, are you, apple?

As for sperm and egg they are human material which combine to make.....human material.

No, they are human material which combine and create a living human organism. Matter doesn't create matter, it's scientifically impossible for the cells to "make" human material, without being a "living organism." We have ZERO examples of such a thing, it has never happened with anything that science has ever studied.

That human material may or may not continue growing.

Correct, any you may not continue growing... does that mean you aren't a living organism right now? When you one day pass away, does that mean you never were a "living organism?" Because THAT is the argument you are presenting here. Once something has died and is no longer a living organism, I agree, it's not a living organism then, because it died. You argument makes no logical sense, unless you believe the only way something can be defined as a "living organism" is if it's able to live forever and never die. We all know that is not possible, therefore, you don't believe there is really any such thing as "living organisms" ....we're all just clumps of random cells, defying science and growing.

Also, it may grow and produce more human material which spontaneously aborts.

If it grew and produced more cells, it was alive, it is scientifically impossible for it to be anything else. Again... we've repeated this at least 100 times, and you still want to repeat it some more... that's fine, but continuing to repeat something that is incorrect, is never going to make it right. Continuing to be completely illogical and irrational, is never going to make it logical or rational, we can repeat this as often as you like, it doesn't matter.

The fact is half the time it does abort. Why does it abort? Scientists do not know but it's reasonable to conclude that some of those pieces of human material do not possess the necessary ingredients to become a human being.

It can't "abort" something it hasn't begun. Again, impossible logic, but you insist on continuing to repeat it as if it will eventually be true. Regardless of what it does or doesn't do or produce, if it produced anything at all, it met the criteria of a living organism, because it's not possible for it to be anything else. If it WAS a living organism and DIED, it does not matter WHY it died, that doesn't change what it was before it died. Again... repeat as often as you like, this doesn't change.

That conclusion is not a leap of faith. It is common sense.

Your idiotic viewpoint is a lack of common sense and ignorance of science on a level that I have seldom seen in any adult. You continue to refute your own argument in trying to explain your illogical conclusions. Common sense says, if something is not yet living, it can't abort the process of living.

Human material. The woman's body expels nature's mistakes. We do know that severely genetically damaged embryos and fetuses are expelled from the body, although not all. In some cases the damage is obvious. In others....well, we don't know. It may appear physically correct but we don't know if there is a hidden genetic defect. Stated another way we do not know if the spontaneously aborted embryo or fetus had the necessary ingredients to become a human being.

But the fetus has already been defined as a living organism from point of conception. If no conception was completed, there is no organism and the cells are expelled (not aborted) from the body. In order for something to be "aborted" it has to have already begun. An aborted fetus or embryo already had the necessary ingredients to meet the criteria of a living organism, because that is what it is "aborting" from, the process of living and being a "living organism." It makes NO difference why or how it stops being a living organism, that doesn't change the fact that it once WAS a living organism, just as, when you die, you will no longer be a living organism, but that doesn't mean you never were.

Conventional wisdom tells us there are approximately 20,000 genes. Over the years that estimate has been all over the map from 100,000 to 18,000. Pick a number. Needless to say if we don't know the exact number of genes how the hell can we determine if something has the necessary genes to become a human being? (Excerpt) The estimates are settling down though, so don't expect as much variation in the future. Zimmer's 18,000 is surely too low, but it's not as far off as other estimates that are casually tossed out in scientific papers. Unfortunately, just as we're settling on a number protein-coding genes, we're finding many new non-protein genes, which means a new debate is just getting started. (End) http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/how_many_genes_do_you_really_have

Now you are off into something completely different and totally unrelated to when something is defined as a "living organism." Human beings are born every day with genes missing or defective, chromosomes missing, things about their genetic makeup not being perfect... it doesn't mean they aren't alive or living organisms, or human beings. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.... and again, you can repeat your ignorance as often as you like, it will never be a fact.

The best analogy I can give is this is like opening a brown bag full of jig-saw puzzle pieces with contents marked "about 20,000 pieces", grabbing a handful or two and then stating with absolute certainty we know all the pieces are there and we know what the picture is. That is, basically, your argument. Nobody knows how many genes we’re supposed to have, what the genes do or what an embryo possesses, yet, you’re claiming, “It’s a human being!”

Poor analogy! A jigsaw puzzle is NOT a living organism. NEXT?

YOU DON’T KNOW. And neither does anyone else.

Yes, I know, and most any high school kid in America who has passed a science class, knows this too. YOU don't know, because you are IGNORANT.

 

[apple0154]

The topic of the thread is God and whether it exists, and has nothing to do with organisms or when they exist. No one 'relies heavily' on DNA defining when an organism exists, unless they are ignorant of science and biology. DNA has absolutely nothing to do with defining when an organism exists.

I said, “The immediate sub-topic is abortion (meaning it's not the main topic of the thread) and DNA and anti-abortionists rely heavily on DNA.” Yes, DNA has everything to do with organisms because that’s precisely the anti-abortionist argument, namely: An organism containing human DNA is a human being. That’s their argument.

Again... (for the umpteenth time) Skin cells are incapable of reproduction on their own. If they could do that, they WOULD be organisms, but they can't, it's not possible. A virus is not an organism, although science closely relates them to an organism because they do reproduce. A virus, however, is incapable of reproduction on it's own, without appropriate circumstances and conditions, usually (but not always) provided by another living organism. Science has determined conclusively, that a human sperm and egg cell which has reached conception, is NOT a virus. You're really not very bright when it comes to science, are you, apple?

Then how do they grow skin for burn victims?

No, they are human material which combine and create a living human organism. Matter doesn't create matter, it's scientifically impossible for the cells to "make" human material, without being a "living organism." We have ZERO examples of such a thing, it has never happened with anything that science has ever studied.

Skin is grown for burn victims.

Correct, any you may not continue growing... does that mean you aren't a living organism right now? When you one day pass away, does that mean you never were a "living organism?" Because THAT is the argument you are presenting here. Once something has died and is no longer a living organism, I agree, it's not a living organism then, because it died. You argument makes no logical sense, unless you believe the only way something can be defined as a "living organism" is if it's able to live forever and never die. We all know that is not possible, therefore, you don't believe there is really any such thing as "living organisms" ....we're all just clumps of random cells, defying science and growing.

My goodness. You really do have a severe understanding problem. I said an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life and, obviously, since I’m here and not attached to a human being I must be an organism. In contrast, embryos and fetuses are attached to a human being and that human being is carrying on the processes of life, processes that the embryos and fetuses are not capable of carrying on. What part of those last two sentences are you having difficulty with?

If it grew and produced more cells, it was alive, it is scientifically impossible for it to be anything else. Again... we've repeated this at least 100 times, and you still want to repeat it some more... that's fine, but continuing to repeat something that is incorrect, is never going to make it right. Continuing to be completely illogical and irrational, is never going to make it logical or rational, we can repeat this as often as you like, it doesn't matter.

Then the skin cells growing in the laboratory must be an organism because they are growing and producing more cells. You said if something grows and produces more cells it’s alive. Fine. Then skin cells are alive but they sure as hell are not human beings.

It can't "abort" something it hasn't begun. Again, impossible logic, but you insist on continuing to repeat it as if it will eventually be true. Regardless of what it does or doesn't do or produce, if it produced anything at all, it met the criteria of a living organism, because it's not possible for it to be anything else. If it WAS a living organism and DIED, it does not matter WHY it died, that doesn't change what it was before it died. Again... repeat as often as you like, this doesn't change.

Fine. If the skin cells produce anything at all, and they do, then they must be alive, and they are but they are not human beings.

Your idiotic viewpoint is a lack of common sense and ignorance of science on a level that I have seldom seen in any adult. You continue to refute your own argument in trying to explain your illogical conclusions. Common sense says, if something is not yet living, it can't abort the process of living.

Abort = stop. Just as skin cells are living if one accidently cuts off a piece of skin, say, off their finger they did not abort a human being. However, they did stop something from living, namely; skin.

But the fetus has already been defined as a living organism from point of conception. If no conception was completed, there is no organism and the cells are expelled (not aborted) from the body. In order for something to be "aborted" it has to have already begun. An aborted fetus or embryo already had the necessary ingredients to meet the criteria of a living organism, because that is what it is "aborting" from, the process of living and being a "living organism." It makes NO difference why or how it stops being a living organism, that doesn't change the fact that it once WAS a living organism, just as, when you die, you will no longer be a living organism, but that doesn't mean you never were.

An aborted fetus or embryo didn’t have the necessary ingredients to be classified as an organism IF an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life because it’s obvious it didn’t have the necessary ingredients to do so. It depended on the organs and blood and bodily functions of the woman and when babies are born premature it has been frequently shown they are incapable of carrying on the processes of life. That’s why bearing a premie is a serious matter. It is incapable of carrying on the processes of life.

Again, what are you having difficulty grasping? If an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life and it is unable to do so then it can not be an organism. What is so difficult to understand about that one sentence statement?

Now you are off into something completely different and totally unrelated to when something is defined as a "living organism." Human beings are born every day with genes missing or defective, chromosomes missing, things about their genetic makeup not being perfect... it doesn't mean they aren't alive or living organisms, or human beings. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.... and again, you can repeat your ignorance as often as you like, it will never be a fact.

One has everything to do with the other because if it lacks the necessary genes to carry on the processes of life it’s not…..(come on. Give it shot. You know the answer.)……an organism. What is the point of defining something, requiring an “item” to possess a certain quality in order to be classified as a certain something if it doesn’t matter if the item in question possesses those qualities?

Poor analogy! A jigsaw puzzle is NOT a living organism. NEXT?

You see, that’s precisely the problem. Logic that is applied to anything and everything in the world is never accepted by anti-abortionists when discussing fetuses. They make up their own definitions, their own logic, twisted as it is.

Yes, I know, and most any high school kid in America who has passed a science class, knows this too. YOU don't know, because you are IGNORANT.

Wrong. No one knows why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. No one knows if those cells contain the necessary ingredients/qualifications to become a human being, let alone are one. When a number of possible exterior factors have been ruled out it’s logical to conclude they are not. And it’s certainly logical to not place a value on them equal to the life of a mature woman. The attempts to do so show either a hatred of women or insanity. Which is it with you?

 

[midcan5]

I've not really stated my position much, I only posted the OP and made the argument. You may say the argument is my position, but the argument is made on sound logic and reasoning, and unless you can refute it, is valid on it's on, regardless of my position. So far, you and the others have offered nothing to refute what was stated in the OP, and I don't think you can... therefore; you attempt to pretend the argument is simply "Dixie's position" and you don't have to agree.

Wait a sec... "Gawd" can't be proven to exist with physical science, but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual proof, or proof outside the bounds of science. (or inside, for that matter.) In fact, it is a bit preposterous to think that because "physical science" can't explain a "supernatural entity" that it must not be possible. That actually demonstrates a closed-mindedness that is the ANTITHESIS of science. Einstein's Theory was thought to be impossible, the term "Big Bang" was coined as an INSULT to the preposterous theory! I can compare it to the other side of the spectrum with an individual who refuses to accept any 'physical science' or any other understanding besides 'spiritual faith', who believes "Gawd" makes it rain. If he closes his mind to the possibility that science can explain the rain, how is he any different than you? .....

Dixie,

Claiming your position is logical and reasoned doesn't make it so, the Williams reference on the biological formation of life countered your organism is instantly a person position. Now you will say it is not an organism as you define it, but you see that is your interpretation. Even an ovum can be defined as an organism as it is living in a women and potential life and is only denied existence if she has a headache this month. (joke but you get the picture) That is the moral reason the Catholic church is against contraception as it is no different than any preventive measure - it stops life from forming. Of course no Catholics today, or few, adhere to that strict prohibition.

We will never agree on this but your desire to have government control a woman's birth right is as Edward Abbey wrote, "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." And why should we males care so much, I'll never face that decision nor will you. There is something odd about those who call others statists wanting the state to enforce their religious beliefs on others?

It is hard to say that we are not now in the fifties in some sections of the nation as it is always the poor who will suffer under the law, the rich will travel or find a doctor who will assist them. That too is a reason to be pro-choice as some - many laws only involve those who cannot avoid them.

Statism, what an odd concept that has become in the minds of conservatives and other wingnuts as an excuse for poverty, inequality, unfair tax law, and any deficit that is not made for our war machine*. If helping children is statism call me a statist, if preventing unnecessary pregnancies is statism call me a statist. I'd wear that label proudly. But the word is only a stick with no meaning outside the choir for without the state there would be chaos.

There are lots out there looking for that thing you call 'opportunity,' you need to let them know where it is. Show them the actual, not the imaginary. It is too easy to imagine easy solutions, harder to make them work.

Caring that cellular life, the tiniest organism has the opportunity to thrive is a fine thought, but then saying, and more than saying supporting efforts to deny help to the living child strikes me as empty moralism and hypocrisy*. Creating laws or denying a women the right to control her maternity decisions places the state where it has no business. You must be a closet statist?

Back on topic: Gawd, if she exists, comes in all sizes and shapes and formulas dependent on historical period, culture, ethnicity, and knowledge. A Pygmy has a different view from someone from Asia who may have no personal gawd or even gawd as we in Western culture imagine, so we (some) are left with hope only and faith that this short period of consciousness lasts forever. The mind cannot imagine its end so it invents no end. It would be fascinating to live forever as a sort of participant in time, but doubtful and without this material body, for we are made of stuff, rather hard for some of us to contemplate. In the end we only believe what we think we know and want to believe. It is what we do for the living that matters or maybe not. Just maybe it is what we think we do.


* http://www.politicususa.com/the-consequences-of-evil-republican-legislation-since-2010.html

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I said, “The immediate sub-topic is abortion (meaning it's not the main topic of the thread) and DNA and anti-abortionists rely heavily on DNA.” Yes, DNA has everything to do with organisms because that’s precisely the anti-abortionist argument, namely: An organism containing human DNA is a human being. That’s their argument.

No it's not. It's part of a very complex argument, which begins with the fact the fetus is a living organism.

Then how do they grow skin for burn victims?

Skin is grown for burn victims.

"They" don't actually "grow" human skin cells. They produce synthetic skin from human skin cells and a variety of other materials. The patient may or may not reject this artificial skin. In any event, the skin cells do not reproduce on their own, without any outside help. If that were possible, you could peel off some skin and watch it as it grew into a new person.

My goodness. You really do have a severe understanding problem. I said an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life and, obviously, since I’m here and not attached to a human being I must be an organism. In contrast, embryos and fetuses are attached to a human being and that human being is carrying on the processes of life, processes that the embryos and fetuses are not capable of carrying on. What part of those last two sentences are you having difficulty with?

No, I think most everyone agrees, it is YOU who has the problem. Yes, you are obviously here and not attached to another human, but you won't always be here. At some point, you will no longer carry on the process of life. You must not be a living organism, by your own definition. The embryo or fetus is perfectly able to carry on the process of life outside the womb... again, we've been doing this for years. It would be impossible to do this if the fetus were only able to exist as part of the host organism.

Then the skin cells growing in the laboratory must be an organism because they are growing and producing more cells. You said if something grows and produces more cells it’s alive. Fine. Then skin cells are alive but they sure as hell are not human beings.

Again, skin cells don't grow in a laboratory or anywhere other than on a human body, the organism which produces skin cells. Artificial skin can be produced using a variety of chemicals and enzymes, along with shark cartilage and other materials. The artificial skin is incapable of sustaining life on its own, it relies on the host organism and is dependent on the host organism accepting it, which doesn't always happen.

Fine. If the skin cells produce anything at all, and they do, then they must be alive, and they are but they are not human beings.

Skin cells can't produce anything at all.

Abort = stop. Just as skin cells are living if one accidently cuts off a piece of skin, say, off their finger they did not abort a human being. However, they did stop something from living, namely; skin.

Right, "abort" means "stop." I asked you; Stop what? Ironically, you answered with your skin example; The process of living. Abortion stops the process of living. In order to stop the process of living, the action of living must first be happening. You can't stop something that hasn't yet started. Therefore, you admit that a fetus is a living organism. If it weren't, there would be no need to abort or stop it.

An aborted fetus or embryo didn’t have the necessary ingredients to be classified as an organism IF an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life because it’s obvious it didn’t have the necessary ingredients to do so. It depended on the organs and blood and bodily functions of the woman and when babies are born premature it has been frequently shown they are incapable of carrying on the processes of life. That’s why bearing a premie is a serious matter. It is incapable of carrying on the processes of life.

So you think that premature babies who die, are not really living organisms of any kind before they die? How bizarre!

Again, what are you having difficulty grasping? If an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life and it is unable to do so then it can not be an organism. What is so difficult to understand about that one sentence statement?

So... since you will one day die, you are NOT a living organism right now? Again, you continue to misconstrue the definition. The organism had the ability to carry on some process before it died, therefore, it WAS a living organism of some kind, it is impossible to classify it any other way. You want to apply an impossible criteria, immortality. Something does not need to be 'immortal' to be an organism, sorry!

One has everything to do with the other because if it lacks the necessary genes to carry on the processes of life it’s not…..(come on. Give it shot. You know the answer.)……an organism. What is the point of defining something, requiring an “item” to possess a certain quality in order to be classified as a certain something if it doesn’t matter if the item in question possesses those qualities?

Again, thousands of people are born every year with missing chromosomes or defective genes, are they not living organisms? Even if they eventually die, were they not living organisms before that? You see, this is where I have a real problem with your erroneous definition. If we can apply your logic, then we can say that organisms are merely what we want to exist as organisms, forget science and biology. This means, we can kill retarded children, because they aren't really 'complete' living organisms. IF someone has failing kidneys, we can terminate them, because they lack the ability to carry on the process of life without kidneys, so they are not living organisms. Same applies for people born without limbs or blind, they are not 'complete' human beings, therefore, they aren't living organisms, according to you.

You see, that’s precisely the problem. Logic that is applied to anything and everything in the world is never accepted by anti-abortionists when discussing fetuses. They make up their own definitions, their own logic, twisted as it is.

Wow... talk about IRONIC!!

Wrong. No one knows why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. No one knows if those cells contain the necessary ingredients/qualifications to become a human being, let alone are one. When a number of possible exterior factors have been ruled out it’s logical to conclude they are not. And it’s certainly logical to not place a value on them equal to the life of a mature woman. The attempts to do so show either a hatred of women or insanity. Which is it with you?

If the egg and sperm cell reproduce another cell, they are an organism. It's simple as that. It does not matter what happens after that. It will never change what was.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie,

Claiming your position is logical and reasoned doesn't make it so, the Williams reference on the biological formation of life countered your organism is instantly a person position. Now you will say it is not an organism as you define it, but you see that is your interpretation. Even an ovum can be defined as an organism as it is living in a women and potential life and is only denied existence if she has a headache this month. (joke but you get the picture) That is the moral reason the Catholic church is against contraception as it is no different than any preventive measure - it stops life from forming. Of course no Catholics today, or few, adhere to that strict prohibition.

We will never agree on this but your desire to have government control a woman's birth right is as Edward Abbey wrote, "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." And why should we males care so much, I'll never face that decision nor will you. There is something odd about those who call others statists wanting the state to enforce their religious beliefs on others?

Science is an "exact science" ...in fact, I think that's where the term originated. I think it was the 17th century when scientists defined "organisms," and set the parameters for what constituted one.

From Wikipedia:
Organism-
In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.
An organism may either be unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many cells) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the sperm and egg cell have successfully produced another cell, they have met the criteria above. There is nothing illogical or irrational about accepting this fact. However, it IS illogical and irrational to deny this fact and pretend that some other criteria exists.

It is hard to say that we are not now in the fifties in some sections of the nation as it is always the poor who will suffer under the law, the rich will travel or find a doctor who will assist them. That too is a reason to be pro-choice as some - many laws only involve those who cannot avoid them.

Well, it may be hard to say, and it may be hard for you to admit, but it's still the truth... this isn't the 1950s, anywhere in America. The poor always suffering under the law, has absolutely nothing to do with when something becomes an organism.

Statism, what an odd concept that has become in the minds of conservatives and other wingnuts as an excuse for poverty, inequality, unfair tax law, and any deficit that is not made for our war machine*. If helping children is statism call me a statist, if preventing unnecessary pregnancies is statism call me a statist. I'd wear that label proudly. But the word is only a stick with no meaning outside the choir for without the state there would be chaos.

Again, midcan, you and I have basically the same objectives, we just have different approaches. The fact that you are too closed-minded to realize that, and too much of a bigoted fool to understand it, is not my problem. This also has absolutely nothing to do with science and when organisms form.

There are lots out there looking for that thing you call 'opportunity,' you need to let them know where it is. Show them the actual, not the imaginary. It is too easy to imagine easy solutions, harder to make them work.

Trying to! First we have to rid the government of the statists who want to turn us into the old Soviet Union. We have to replace their line of thinking with conservative free market capitalistic principles and solutions. Then opportunity will abound for all, including the poor. We know this because that's what happened in the past. Now, the poor aren't ever going to be non-existent, you should be mature enough to understand that. Nothing can ever be done to completely eliminate poverty, heal all the sick, feed all the hungry, end all wars, etc. These are problems we will forever be plagued with, regardless of what we do. That's why they make such a great strawman for liberals, they are problems that can never be completely solved. Case in point, liberals have spent over $30 trillion fighting the 'war on poverty' only to find as many people living in poverty as when they began. This should tell you that the liberal statist approach doesn't work, and we need to try something different.

Caring that cellular life, the tiniest organism has the opportunity to thrive is a fine thought, but then saying, and more than saying supporting efforts to deny help to the living child strikes me as empty moralism and hypocrisy*. Creating laws or denying a women the right to control her maternity decisions places the state where it has no business. You must be a closet statist?

Well wait a minute, I have not said that the tiniest human organisms should have the opportunity to thrive, just that the tiniest human organisms are living organisms. I've said all along, I don't have a problem with us having the moral debate over when it's appropriate and acceptable to terminate a human life, just that we need to be honest about what we're doing. To deny that an organism exists, as apple has repeatedly done, is either dishonest or ignorant of science. We can't advance the debate to the discussion of anything else, until we are honest about this.

As for "controlling women's maternity decisions" ...I have often said, I am "pro-choice!" I believe the woman has a right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse and whether or not to use birth control. I am not "pro-unlimited-choices," where women are allowed to keep making choices to avoid the consequences of previous choices. I am not a "statist" for believing society needs rules, boundaries and limitations.

Back on topic: Gawd, if she exists, comes in all sizes and shapes and formulas dependent on historical period, culture, ethnicity, and knowledge. A Pygmy has a different view from someone from Asia who may have no personal gawd or even gawd as we in Western culture imagine, so we (some) are left with hope only and faith that this short period of consciousness lasts forever. The mind cannot imagine its end so it invents no end. It would be fascinating to live forever as a sort of participant in time, but doubtful and without this material body, for we are made of stuff, rather hard for some of us to contemplate. In the end we only believe what we think we know and want to believe. It is what we do for the living that matters or maybe not. Just maybe it is what we think we do.

Ironically, I think we're not far off in our views. My argument for God is not confined to any particular representation of God from organized religion. In fact, I believe organized religion is man's way of trying to comprehend something he doesn't really understand and can't fully comprehend. Human spirituality is a hard thing to deny, it's evidence dates back to the earliest of human civilizations. You can come up with all kinds of excuses and reasons for this, but the fact is, we are intrinsically tied to spiritual faith, and always have been. Mankind has always had the longing and need to worship something greater than self, and we have to acknowledge this must be fundamental to who we are as a species.

The thread OP was more of an examination of the context regarding the question. If we examine existence of God through the physical realm and physical science, we find no evidence, but why would we? Physical science deals with the physical realm, and God is a spiritual entity, not a physical one. In order to examine the question in context, you have to explore spiritual evidence, not physical. The problem is, spiritual evidence, much like physical evidence, relies on faith of the individual and what that individual perceives as "proof" for their faith. There is no "proof" that we evolved from a lesser ancestor, that is a theory of evolution, and many people have faith the theory is valid, based on "proof" they derive from physical science. You can't "prove" anything to someone who rejects your evidence. Since you will reject any spiritual evidence, it is impossible for you to ever believe there is proof. In the end, we only believe what we think we know and want to believe.

 

[midcan5]

Dixie, then the solution is simple, support living people by voting for policies that support life, a decent life, and I'd take you seriously. How to do that, support Planned Parenthood and job creation here as starters. Support those who put their money back into the infrastructure. Support government, as government is us, and it can make life better for those in need. Make your vote, for whomever, represent that support of life. Otherwise it is just a lot of empty words.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

????....your best example of an organization that supports life is Planned Parenthood?......

 

[apple0154]

"They" don't actually "grow" human skin cells. They produce synthetic skin from human skin cells and a variety of other materials. The patient may or may not reject this artificial skin. In any event, the skin cells do not reproduce on their own, without any outside help. If that were possible, you could peel off some skin and watch it as it grew into a new person.

Similarly, if a fetus could grow without any outside help we could put an egg and some sperm in a dish and watch a human being grow.

No, I think most everyone agrees, it is YOU who has the problem. Yes, you are obviously here and not attached to another human, but you won't always be here. At some point, you will no longer carry on the process of life. You must not be a living organism, by your own definition. The embryo or fetus is perfectly able to carry on the process of life outside the womb... again, we've been doing this for years. It would be impossible to do this if the fetus were only able to exist as part of the host organism.

Fine. Then remove it from the woman’s body. That’s really all most woman want, just to have it removed. If, as you say, we can remove it then the problem is solved.

Right, "abort" means "stop." I asked you; Stop what? Ironically, you answered with your skin example; The process of living. Abortion stops the process of living. In order to stop the process of living, the action of living must first be happening. You can't stop something that hasn't yet started. Therefore, you admit that a fetus is a living organism. If it weren't, there would be no need to abort or stop it.

Do you even understand what you write?

You wrote, “I asked you; Stop what? Ironically, you answered with your skin example; The process of living. Abortion stops the process of living.”

Yes, exactly. However, you go on to write, “Therefore, you admit that a fetus is a living organism.”

No, I did not admit a fetus is a living organism. IF the definition of organism is the ability of something to carry on the processes of life then a fetus is not an organism. It is unable to carry on the processes of life. The woman carries on the processes of life by breathing for the fetus, supplying nutrients because the fetus’s digestive system is unable to process food, removing waste, etc. The woman takes care of the necessary functions for the fetus just as she takes care of the necessary functions in order to grow skin.

[QUOITE] So you think that premature babies who die, are not really living organisms of any kind before they die? How bizarre! [/QUOTE]

Nothing bizarre about it. Many never developed the necessary qualifications/ability to carry on the processes of life. What is the point of saying an organism has to have the ability to carry on the processes of life and then classify something that does not have that ability as an organism?

So... since you will one day die, you are NOT a living organism right now? Again, you continue to misconstrue the definition. The organism had the ability to carry on some process before it died, therefore, it WAS a living organism of some kind, it is impossible to classify it any other way. You want to apply an impossible criteria, immortality. Something does not need to be 'immortal' to be an organism, sorry!

This appears to be the area you’re having difficulty with. First, something does not have to live forever in order to be considered an organism but it does have to have lived a period of time as an organism. Now, take a fetus. It is connected to the woman all the time. It never carries on the processes of life on its own.

Second, as to the organism living and how long the organism lived consider the following. When a liver is removed for transplant it lives long enough to be transplanted into another body. However, from the moment it is removed from the donor to the time it is connected to the recipient it is dying. Procedures are done in order to keep the liver alive but it is slowly dying.

The same applies to those fertilized cells that abort/die, cells you call organisms. Just because they are alive does not mean they are carrying on the processes of life. The moment a cell is fertilized could very well be the moment it starts to die due to lacking vital ingredients.

As I explained before nature makes mistakes. Many mistakes. Considering no outside factors have been implicated in the majority of aborted/dying cells it’s reasonable to conclude they were mistakes. They may look and even act like normal cells but within a few hours/days the inherent errors result in the termination of said cells. It’s logical to conclude they were never organisms. They performed some of the functions associated with organisms but did not possess the ability to carry on the processes of life.

So, to sum it up, it’s not a question of how long an organism survives. There never was an organism. The cells in question were fatally flawed. Again, their mimicking of actions associated with organisms lasts a very short time as they lack all the necessary components.

If we were talking about a few it would be a different story but 50% of them fail to develop. How can we righteously equate such cells with that of a mature woman?

If, and it’s a big IF, society wants to place the value of a few cells barely visible to the unaided eye as being equal in value to a mature women surely the least we can demand is proof those cells are, indeed, viable human beings. If, as a society, we’re going to force a woman to carry and bear a fetus and endure damage up to but not including loss of life is it too much to demand proof those cells are what some folks claim? As a society shouldn’t we, at the very least, be 100% sure of what we’re comparing to the value of a woman? Is that really too much to ask?

Again, thousands of people are born every year with missing chromosomes or defective genes, are they not living organisms? Even if they eventually die, were they not living organisms before that? You see, this is where I have a real problem with your erroneous definition. If we can apply your logic, then we can say that organisms are merely what we want to exist as organisms, forget science and biology. This means, we can kill retarded children, because they aren't really 'complete' living organisms. IF someone has failing kidneys, we can terminate them, because they lack the ability to carry on the process of life without kidneys, so they are not living organisms. Same applies for people born without limbs or blind, they are not 'complete' human beings, therefore, they aren't living organisms, according to you.

Not according to me, according to the scientific definition of an organism and those who claim that if the organism in question is composed of human material it is a human being. It follows that if something does not fulfill the definition of organism then it can not be a human being. That is the only possible conclusion if we adopt the anti-abortionist argument.

It’s the same thing with their DNA argument claiming unique DNA differing from the woman proves the embryo/fetus is a human being. That’s been shown to be completely false as women can have body parts composed of unique DNA which differs from the majority of DNA that composes the rest of their body.

If the egg and sperm cell reproduce another cell, they are an organism. It's simple as that. It does not matter what happens after that. It will never change what was.

It comes down to a credibility issue. Recall that link I posted about a government agency trying to take away a woman’s children by claiming DNA “ proved” the children were not hers? If I recall that was about a half dozen years ago.

Recall the link I posted showing a child with 3 pairs of legs? One pair had different DNA from the main body. Doctors surmise one pair of extra legs was from a “twin” that never developed. Are the legs an organism? Was the “twin” an organism? Does something that can only produce a pair of legs hold the same value as a mature woman?

As I said before to place a value on such things equal to the life of a mature woman shows either a hatred of women or insanity. Which is it with you?

 

[apple0154]

“In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.”

Once the sperm and egg cell have successfully produced another cell, they have met the criteria above. There is nothing illogical or irrational about accepting this fact. However, it IS illogical and irrational to deny this fact and pretend that some other criteria exists.

If they meet the criteria above. IF. That’s where your understanding fails. Some cells that are reproduced, around 50% of them, are not cells that can grow and develop. Why can’t you grasp that? The cell that you refer to as an organism is not an organism if it can not reproduce a viable cell as that indicates it can not reproduce and grow and develop.

How more straight forward can it be said? The fact it can produce a cell does not mean that particular cell can grow and develop and we know 50% of them don’t. They don’t reproduce and being able to do so is a vital quality, a quality they must possess in order to be classified as an organism.

Why are you having such difficulty understanding something so basic? You’re displaying the actions of a troll. There is nothing complicated about what I state. If the criteria for an organism includes the ability to reproduce and grow and develop but it is unable to reproduce and grow and develop that can only mean one thing.

It’s time to stop your nonsense.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Science is an "exact science" ...in fact, I think that's where the term originated. I think it was the 17th century when scientists defined "organisms," and set the parameters for what constituted one.

From Wikipedia:
Organism-
In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.
An organism may either be unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many cells) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the sperm and egg cell have successfully produced another cell, they have met the criteria above. There is nothing illogical or irrational about accepting this fact. However, it IS illogical and irrational to deny this fact and pretend that some other criteria exists.



Well, it may be hard to say, and it may be hard for you to admit, but it's still the truth... this isn't the 1950s, anywhere in America. The poor always suffering under the law, has absolutely nothing to do with when something becomes an organism.



Again, midcan, you and I have basically the same objectives, we just have different approaches. The fact that you are too closed-minded to realize that, and too much of a bigoted fool to understand it, is not my problem. This also has absolutely nothing to do with science and when organisms form.



Trying to! First we have to rid the government of the statists who want to turn us into the old Soviet Union. We have to replace their line of thinking with conservative free market capitalistic principles and solutions. Then opportunity will abound for all, including the poor. We know this because that's what happened in the past. Now, the poor aren't ever going to be non-existent, you should be mature enough to understand that. Nothing can ever be done to completely eliminate poverty, heal all the sick, feed all the hungry, end all wars, etc. These are problems we will forever be plagued with, regardless of what we do. That's why they make such a great strawman for liberals, they are problems that can never be completely solved. Case in point, liberals have spent over $30 trillion fighting the 'war on poverty' only to find as many people living in poverty as when they began. This should tell you that the liberal statist approach doesn't work, and we need to try something different.



Well wait a minute, I have not said that the tiniest human organisms should have the opportunity to thrive, just that the tiniest human organisms are living organisms. I've said all along, I don't have a problem with us having the moral debate over when it's appropriate and acceptable to terminate a human life, just that we need to be honest about what we're doing. To deny that an organism exists, as apple has repeatedly done, is either dishonest or ignorant of science. We can't advance the debate to the discussion of anything else, until we are honest about this.

As for "controlling women's maternity decisions" ...I have often said, I am "pro-choice!" I believe the woman has a right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse and whether or not to use birth control. I am not "pro-unlimited-choices," where women are allowed to keep making choices to avoid the consequences of previous choices. I am not a "statist" for believing society needs rules, boundaries and limitations.



Ironically, I think we're not far off in our views. My argument for God is not confined to any particular representation of God from organized religion. In fact, I believe organized religion is man's way of trying to comprehend something he doesn't really understand and can't fully comprehend. Human spirituality is a hard thing to deny, it's evidence dates back to the earliest of human civilizations. You can come up with all kinds of excuses and reasons for this, but the fact is, we are intrinsically tied to spiritual faith, and always have been. Mankind has always had the longing and need to worship something greater than self, and we have to acknowledge this must be fundamental to who we are as a species.

The thread OP was more of an examination of the context regarding the question. If we examine existence of God through the physical realm and physical science, we find no evidence, but why would we? Physical science deals with the physical realm, and God is a spiritual entity, not a physical one. In order to examine the question in context, you have to explore spiritual evidence, not physical. The problem is, spiritual evidence, much like physical evidence, relies on faith of the individual and what that individual perceives as "proof" for their faith. There is no "proof" that we evolved from a lesser ancestor, that is a theory of evolution, and many people have faith the theory is valid, based on "proof" they derive from physical science. You can't "prove" anything to someone who rejects your evidence. Since you will reject any spiritual evidence, it is impossible for you to ever believe there is proof. In the end, we only believe what we think we know and want to believe.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

[edit]

Skin cells do not reproduce on their own, the cells of a fetus reproduce without anything else. Therefore, they are an organism.

Something that is "in the process of life" can only be described as a living organism. Sperm, egg, and skin cells, are "alive" in the sense they draw life from energy of the host, and can't continue to live without it. They are not "in the process" of life, their life has no process, they exit in living state due to the host organism, they are a part of the host organism and belong to the organism. When the egg and sperm have successfully produced another cell, they become a unique living organism, "in the process of life" and no longer dependent on the energy of the host as individual living cells, but rather, an organism of their own, independent of the host. The living organism now known as the fetus, will continue to depend on the host for nutrition, but this can happen over the course of the next 9 months, and then another 6-8 months after birth, as the organism feeds on breast milk from the host. The living organism will also depend on the host to provide care and nourishment over the course of the next several years. At no point, does the fact that the organism depends on the host for nourishment and survival, does it change what the organism is.

I will not bother with the rest of your post, and I am again going to tell you we've finished this discussion. You really need to educate yourself, apple. You are so far out in left field with this, that even your most ardent pinhead friends won't dare come here and support you. They can't, because what you are saying is abject idiocy on a scale they have probably never seen, and can only be embarrassed by. Please just shut up, and stop 'splainin' it to us? The more you yap, the stoopider you sound, REALLY!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, then the solution is simple, support living people by voting for policies that support life, a decent life, and I'd take you seriously. How to do that, support Planned Parenthood and job creation here as starters. Support those who put their money back into the infrastructure. Support government, as government is us, and it can make life better for those in need. Make your vote, for whomever, represent that support of life. Otherwise it is just a lot of empty words.

Again, midcan... I have my own ideas for solutions, and they aren't yours. Sorry! I don't agree with you, government is not there to make life better for those in need, it hasn't done it over the last 80 years, in spite of trillions of dollars spent and hundreds of socialist liberal policies initiated and agencies established. The result is, the same relative number of people in poverty, and trillions over trillions in debt for my children and grandchildren to pay. Why would I want to continue this strategy when it's so clearly NOT working?

I do support those who put their money back in the infrastructure, namely, manufacturers who bring overseas jobs back to America... I say we should declare a moratorium on taxation of repatriated foreign wealth, if they use the money to create new jobs here. I can't support Planned Parenthood, they are an abortion mill, and a functionary unit of the pro-choice movement. I am pro-life. I appreciate your advice, but my vote is going to someone who will institute conservative policies and appoint conservative judges.

 

[apple0154]

[edit]

Skin cells do not reproduce on their own, the cells of a fetus reproduce without anything else. Therefore, they are an organism.

Something that is "in the process of life" can only be described as a living organism. Sperm, egg, and skin cells, are "alive" in the sense they draw life from energy of the host, and can't continue to live without it. They are not "in the process" of life, their life has no process, they exit in living state due to the host organism, they are a part of the host organism and belong to the organism. When the egg and sperm have successfully produced another cell, they become a unique living organism, "in the process of life" and no longer dependent on the energy of the host as individual living cells, but rather, an organism of their own, independent of the host. The living organism now known as the fetus, will continue to depend on the host for nutrition, but this can happen over the course of the next 9 months, and then another 6-8 months after birth, as the organism feeds on breast milk from the host. The living organism will also depend on the host to provide care and nourishment over the course of the next several years. At no point, does the fact that the organism depends on the host for nourishment and survival, does it change what the organism is.

Fine. If the "organism" called fetus is independent then remove it.

After a birth anyone can feed the baby. Anyone can feed and clothe and keep the baby sheltered. No one has to offer their kidneys to remove the waste of the baby. No one has to offer their pancreas to supply insulin. And on and on it goes. Giving a baby a bottle of milk and a jar of Gerber is not the same as what the woman supplies when the fetus is inside her.

Try to get it through your head the woman supplies more than just nourishment to a fetus. If her kidneys malfunction it affects the fetus. If her liver malfunctions it affects the fetus. Her blood. Her heart. To compare the assistance given to a baby to what a pregnant woman does for a fetus shows the height of your ignorance. And to say the fetus and a baby are the same when veins atrophy and blood flow changes direction after birth is more craziness. Take an organism and change it's blood flow and remove a few veins from operation and see what happens.

I will not bother with the rest of your post, and I am again going to tell you we've finished this discussion. You really need to educate yourself, apple. You are so far out in left field with this, that even your most ardent pinhead friends won't dare come here and support you. They can't, because what you are saying is abject idiocy on a scale they have probably never seen, and can only be embarrassed by. Please just shut up, and stop 'splainin' it to us? The more you yap, the stoopider you sound, REALLY!

As I said before people can classify something as anything they want. If they want to say a fetus is an organism and capable of carrying on the processes of life, I say, "Prove it. Remove it." If it is not part of the mother until after birth then simply remove it. That's all women are asking. They're not demanding anything be killed. All they're requesting is it be removed. If it can't be removed and survive then it is, for all practical purposes, part of the woman. And talking about left field this idea of human beings living inside other human beings is about as bizarre as it gets.

Fetuses, especially younger ones, don't even have functioning organs. To imply they're capable of carrying on the processes of life is absurd. And embryos are little more than a clump of cells totally dependent on the body in which they are located.

Do you honestly believe the legalization of abortion in most first world nations is due to those politicians and judges believing in privacy? Do you think all those nations have a privacy "clause" in their respective constitutions or could it be they used logic and common sense to arrive at their decision?

The left-fielders are those who extrapolate from a clump of cells of which little is actually known as far as exactly what they contain regarding DNA and genes and chromosomes let alone their potential, if any, and attempting to declare they're human beings. Furthermore, we know the real reasons behind their vile insistence. Two obvious reasons are racism and the desire for soldiers to be available to send to the slaughter of war. The second reason was verified in 1869 with the hellish deal between the Emperor of France and the Pope and the first reason is obvious if one listens to any right wing chatter about how the world is being taken over by foreigners while the white race declines.

Their appearance of taking the high ground regarding science and religion and morality is nauseating when their true intentions are known. Add to that the sexist element and it all boils down to control. Dominance over race, gender, war power.....that's their morality.

Out of left field? Right field? Neither. It's coming directly over home plate. Most people have woke up. They know the evil that's being sold as morality. Package it any way you want but the game is over, Dix.

 

[apple0154]

Again, midcan... I have my own ideas for solutions, and they aren't yours. Sorry! I don't agree with you, government is not there to make life better for those in need, it hasn't done it over the last 80 years, in spite of trillions of dollars spent and hundreds of socialist liberal policies initiated and agencies established. The result is, the same relative number of people in poverty, and trillions over trillions in debt for my children and grandchildren to pay. Why would I want to continue this strategy when it's so clearly NOT working?

I do support those who put their money back in the infrastructure, namely, manufacturers who bring overseas jobs back to America... I say we should declare a moratorium on taxation of repatriated foreign wealth, if they use the money to create new jobs here. I can't support Planned Parenthood, they are an abortion mill, and a functionary unit of the pro-choice movement. I am pro-life. I appreciate your advice, but my vote is going to someone who will institute conservative policies and appoint conservative judges.

My goodness, you're one dull dude. The Preamble to the Constitution makes clear the exact opposite of what you say. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty." The whole idea behind the Constitution was to make life better for the people.

Honestly. From where do you get your ideas? The founders were familiar with the hardships citizens endured in other countries. That's precisely why they wanted to form a more perfect union. They devised a government to do all it could, at that time, to make life better for the people. That was the goal.

You definitely have a weird way of interpreting things.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

how much does a memory weigh?.....

I suppose you could add up the weight of the things on which the memory is encoded (neurons and eletrochemical signals for humans, mostly). I suppose, though, that is not what you mean. An memory is a totality that is greater than it's parts, it can not be meaningfully said to have a weight.

what color is an idea?....

Again, you could look at the color of its the things which the idea is encoded, but that doesn't provide meaningful information about the idea.

is knowledge metaphysical?.....

Metaphysics is a rather vague word. If we rely on wikipedia's definition: "a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world", then obviously yes.

was the concert that Mozart imagined something that can be studied by science?......

Sure it can be "studied" by science. I can "study" anything I like, whether or not this would be a good use of my time or likely to produce a result is the question. It's debatable how much we can know about such things - we can't know what we can't know. However, if you are literally referring to imagination that Mozart had at one point in time (rather than, for instance, an analysis of his music), that information has been lost, and it would require a major change in our current understanding of physics (such as time travel) to recover lost information.

A lot of people get confused on this point because they've somehow come to the conclusion that conservation of mass and energy means that a persons "essence" can never truly be lost, as they believe this would require the elimination of energy from the universe. However, although energy and mass can't be destroyed, information can. The energy that Mozart used to imagine a concert at some point in time is somewhere out there in the world, maybe contributing to a gust of wind, or powering a light bulb. The information of the imagination is gone.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

government is not there to make life better for those in need,

Justice for those in need of justice? Infrastructure for those in need of infrastructure? Defense for those in need of protection from foreign powers? At some level, isn't everything the government's suppose to do simply an attempt to make life better for those in need?

I do support those who put their money back in the infrastructure, namely, manufacturers who bring overseas jobs back to America...

You would have to offer some significant, probably proposterous subsidies to make that economically worth their while - indeed, there are many things that foreigners offer that Americans basically can't compete with. Apple's move of production to Foxconn in China, for instance, allows them to access literally tens of thousands of workers who live in the companies dormitory at a moments notice, allowing them to change production quickly. This was demonstrated, for instance, when Steve Jobs decided, a few weeks before the launch of the IPhone, that he wanted to switch to glass instead of plastic for the screen - tens of thousands of Foxconn workers were raised from their beds in the middle of the night, and production began immediately. You're never going to see that in America.

Also, these subsidies would ultimately have to come from somewhere in the economy at some point in time, which would harm more productive sectors of the economy, wouldn't it? That would, according to neoliberal economic theory, likely cost more jobs than it saved. Even if you are (and you certainly are) going to respond by saying that you'll cut some "government waste" to fund it, that saved money could've gone to more productive sectors. If your plan is to offer some sort of general tax break to businesses, well, you could eliminate the business tax and it wouldn't be economically worthwhile for most of these corporations to stay in America.

I say we should declare a moratorium on taxation of repatriated foreign wealth, if they use the money to create new jobs here.

So if people put their money in a foreign account and then bring it back here, suddenly there's no tax on it? Then everybody would do that, and you'd have essentially eliminated the taxes on whatever wealth this policy applies to through an obtuse and inefficient method. Or is this some kind of one time deal? In which case it would likely have little to no long-term economic effect; no company is going to relocate for a one time tax break. Maybe they'll relocate if the tax break lasts 10 or 20 years, but then they'll relocate back at the end of that period. And aren't you concerned about the unfairness you're inflicting on those businesses who chose to stay in America and now have to compete against other businesses that get off scott free from taxation because they chose not to in the past?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I suppose you could add up the weight of the things on which the memory is encoded (neurons and eletrochemical signals for humans, mostly). I suppose, though, that is not what you mean. An memory is a totality that is greater than it's parts, it can not be meaningfully said to have a weight.



Again, you could look at the color of its the things which the idea is encoded, but that doesn't provide meaningful information about the idea.



Metaphysics is a rather vague word. If we rely on wikipedia's definition: "a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world", then obviously yes.



Sure it can be "studied" by science. I can "study" anything I like, whether or not this would be a good use of my time or likely to produce a result is the question. It's debatable how much we can know about such things - we can't know what we can't know. However, if you are literally referring to imagination that Mozart had at one point in time (rather than, for instance, an analysis of his music), that information has been lost, and it would require a major change in our current understanding of physics (such as time travel) to recover lost information.

A lot of people get confused on this point because they've somehow come to the conclusion that conservation of mass and energy means that a persons "essence" can never truly be lost, as they believe this would require the elimination of energy from the universe. However, although energy and mass can't be destroyed, information can. The energy that Mozart used to imagine a concert at some point in time is somewhere out there in the world, maybe contributing to a gust of wind, or powering a light bulb. The information of the imagination is gone.

in conclusion....Watermark's posts have an odor.....