The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[Day Man]

thread to stop the creep from the presidential thread.

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

My apologies for the thread derailment. I made no mention of an egg fertilized, fried, or scrambled. I just said a single or multicellular organism. It's a simple question. 

Rog...they say they found life/evidence of life. What's your point?

 

[Kiloalpha]

54 minutes ago, Day Man said:

Rog...they say they found life/evidence of life. What's your point?

Pretty simple. He’s using a parallel example of Mars to show the error in your/society’s whimsical definition of “life.”

[Lord Ratner]

Obviously the definition of life is not the appropriate framing for the conversation, especially within the context of a single celled organism on mars.

 

I'm sure you would also concede that a spider, a mosquito, a cow, and aging family pet, or a mouse would be considered "life." We do not debate these intentional life-endings with nearly the same furor. Ironically, if you were to correlate political ideologies, the people who are against the murder of non-human-animal "life' are equally for the protection of abortion. But that's because the environmental movement is more anti-human than it is pro-earth. Tangent. 

 

Each side of the abortion debate is trying to frame it using precisely chosen words to bolster their argument. Every single person knows exactly what the debate is about. Killing a fetus. It doesn't matter what we would do on Mars with a single cell. It also doesn't matter that a fetus can't function on its own. Debate the issue, not the semantics.

 

And in case it seems like I'm waffling, I'm personally against all abortions that aren't for rape or health concerns for the mother or child. However I concede, as an atheist, that my views are based on a personal analysis of humanity and not some magical graybeard in the sky telling me what to do. In such instances where the population is clearly split, the tie goes to the citizen. So I would make abortion legal up the the point of viability (currently hovering around 22 weeks, so let's call it 25 for now). After viability only serious risk to the mother or child would be ground for an abortion. A middle ground solution to a deeply divided issue. 

 

But like so many conversations in American politics today, we now spend more time talking about the semantics of the issues than the issue itself.

[TreeA10]

8 hours ago, Day Man said:

Rog...they say they found life/evidence of life. What's your point?

 

My point was to establish an accepted scientific definition that allows for further conversation.  Whether you are for or against abortion, I think it is important to start with accurate terminology about what we are dealing with. 

[Prozac]

I don’t know anyone who argues that an embryo is not a living thing. The question is; when does that entity become a person?  And, perhaps just as importantly; who do you want to make that determination? Your church? Your government? Popular opinion? The mother? The father? You can see how this subject blurs the lines between morality, theology, and philosophy. Don’t we, as Americans, place great value on keeping our government away from such fuzzy issues? People are certainly entitled to make up their own minds on the subject. I would never advocate for someone who is pro life to change their mind. But when the question of when a person becomes a person is far from settled I find the idea that the government should make that decision for me to be unacceptable and frankly un-American. 

[Day Man]

11 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Pretty simple. He’s using a parallel example of Mars to show the error in your/society’s whimsical definition of “life.”

you should let the folks at NASA know you figured it out!

Quote

The big question – Is there life beyond Earth? – comes with an ironic asterisk: we don't really have a universally accepted definition of life itself.

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/search-for-life/can-we-find-life/

[bfargin]

Now that its out of the other thread I'll add my .02 again. We have a definition of human life according to science and there really is no debate there, but as Prozac pointed out "person" might be a little more nuanced. I think you have to be pro abortion to nitpick that, but that is just my opinion and I'm definitely not a linguistics expert.

Edit to add: I do acknowledge that current US law for citizenship doesn't recognize a person for citizenship until they are born. So, with that standard, the "person" protection afforded by the constitution could be argued not to apply until the baby is born (even though as y'all know, I don't like that).

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by bfargin

[Guardian]

Passing through a female genitalia or being cut from a stomach is what makes you a person?

[Day Man]

7 hours ago, bfargin said:

We have a definition of human life according to science and there really is no debate there,

can you please provide a reference for this?

[1:1:1]

7 hours ago, Day Man said:

can you please provide a reference for this?

https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/

"As the usable responses began to come in, I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%). In the case of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%)."

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

"The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote"

[bfargin]

https://tennesseestar.com/2021/04/30/bill-declaring-personhood-begins-at-conception-passes-tennessee-general-assembly/?fbclid=IwAR22VarNKCbp0EE4zJ3YAhOZYonsOO0AjufAD-Wkcx8kj31_17Oy6boFQa0

This recently happened here in TN. Here, according to criminal law, an unborn child is a "person", but this wasn't true in civil law. I'm not sure if the Governor signed it yet, but once he does, it will be true in civil law also.

[DosXX]

On 5/9/2021 at 11:16 AM, Prozac said:

The question is; when does that entity become a person?

Every time you rub one out you are eliminating the lives of millions #NoFap

[Day Man]

13 hours ago, 1:1:1 said:

https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/

"As the usable responses began to come in, I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%). In the case of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%)."

the author of that opinion article couldn't be biased...

Quote

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

"The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote"

sorry, a collection of random quotes doesn't mean shit just because it has 'princeton.edu' in the URL

[tac airlifter]

A philosophically consistent mechanism for determining the beginning of human life might be using the opposite of the identified end of human life:

1. cessation of either circulatory & respiratory function OR 

2. cessation of brain activity.  

A logical starting point would be assuming human life begins at the opposite of defined human death.

[Lord Ratner]

48 minutes ago, Day Man said:

the author of that opinion article couldn't be biased...

sorry, a collection of random quotes doesn't mean shit just because it has 'princeton.edu' in the URL

So you have a counter survey of biologists or scientists to cite?

[Day Man]

21 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

So you have a counter survey of biologists or scientists to cite?

not gonna bother...a survey is fallible. is NASA's stance not valid enough for a counterpoint?

[1:1:1]

3 minutes ago, Day Man said:

not gonna bother...a survey is fallible. is NASA's stance not valid enough for a counterpoint?

You're grasping at straws. There are logically consistent arguments for abortion but you choose not to use those. A zygote is a living organism with unique, human DNA. 

[Kudzu]

Well, this seems to be as good a place as any to make my first post.  Pardon me, but I don't know where else to do it.  These Invision boards are a challenge.

Anyway, I got tired of being the amateur on my hobby boards, so I figured I'd join one where I already have the stink.  FAIP, Herc Tac Airlift, 6500+ hours, retired 15 years ago.  Haven't logged an hour, civilian or military, since.  I really don't miss all the 0200 get-ups, NVG flying, massive prep just to get weather canx, Alpha-3s, rescheduled missions and the other crap, but I miss the pure enjoyment of flying after "gear up."  And the comraderie.

I bet I know, and have even flown with a few of you; I would like to reconnect not only here on the ethernet but also in person if it comes to that...cheers, Scott

[Day Man]

15 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:

You're grasping at straws. There are logically consistent arguments for abortion but you choose not to use those. A zygote is a living organism with unique, human DNA. 

we're discussing whether it's considered 'living'...your viewpoint isn't as universally accepted despite how much you want it to be.

[bfargin]

4 minutes ago, Day Man said:

we're discussing whether it's considered 'living'...your viewpoint isn't as universally accepted despite how much you want it to be.

Now you're talking complete shit. there is universal agreement by medical and scientific communities that human life is present the moment of conception. The only discussion might be the term "person". You might not like that fact anymore than I like the idea that "person"hood can be debated, but its established fact.

[Day Man]

13 minutes ago, bfargin said:

Now you're talking complete shit. there is universal agreement by medical and scientific communities that human life is present the moment of conception. The only discussion might be the term "person". You might not like that fact anymore than I like the idea that "person"hood can be debated, but its established fact.

cool. again, please provide a (valid) reference.

[di1630]

This is a stupid Bodn argument.

If we found a blade of grass in the universe it’d be life.

This is a subjective moral dilemma. I ask my religious friends where in the Bible it talks about abortion...the conversation goes off the subjective rails from there.

Not all life has value and value is a subjective opinion.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Seadogs]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." -Jeremiah 1:5

 

My friend, your opinion is also that, an opinion. And some opinions have zero value. 

[Kiloalpha]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

A philosophically consistent mechanism for determining the beginning of human life might be using the opposite of the identified end of human life:

1. cessation of either circulatory & respiratory function OR 

2. cessation of brain activity.  

A logical starting point would be assuming human life begins at the opposite of defined human death.

A post of clarity in a sea of sport-bitching. I like this thinking.

Here's my problem with the discussion. Roe found that abortions were legal until 28 weeks, because that was the court-defined point of "viability." Ok, let's use that term/idea as the consistent standard.

To be logically consistent, pro-choice people should now be for restricting abortions after 22 weeks, because medicine has improved since 1973, and the data shows that babies are surviving at 22 weeks. Hell, one was just born at 21 weeks in MN, albeit it was a miracle.

The standard Roe sets is a sliding scale. As medicine improves, that number should keep going down. It could even theoretically go down to 1 day. Are abortion advocates going to hold that consistent "viability" standard if that happens? Hell no, because "viability" isn't really their argument.

The true argument is "choice." It boils down to this: My ability to live my life as I choose, without the responsibility of a child, is more important than the fetus' right to live.

Read that twice, and tell me that doesn't make you uneasy.

Idk what the answer is, but I can't support that argument.