• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Seperation of Church and State

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
No liberty for those aborted, and certainly no happiness.
Click to expand...
Personification of a fetus? Ok, I'll bite, how do you know of the happiness or displeasure of a fetus' disposition?
Click to expand...
Well, it stands to reason. When a baby is warm, well fed, and in comfortable surroundings, it smiles, laughs, coos, and in so many ways, exhibits that it is content with life. That is happiness. All of these conditions are present inside the womb before birth as well as in Mom's arms after that.

By the way, I posted this in another thread and so far, no rebuttal. Care to take a shot?

ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.

http://acpeds.org/index.cgi?CONTEXT=art&cat=10007&art=53&BISKIT=4278471778
 
Fantasea said:
Well, it stands to reason. When a baby is warm, well fed, and in comfortable surroundings, it smiles, laughs, coos, and in so many ways, exhibits that it is content with life. That is happiness. All of these conditions are present inside the womb before birth as well as in Mom's arms after that.
Click to expand...
We're talking about a fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus. Not a baby. Moreover, for babies, it's been proven over and over that laughter and smiles at the age are attributed to gas and not emotion.


Fantasea said:
By the way, I posted this in another thread and so far, no rebuttal. Care to take a shot?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a load of sh.... Well, let's just say that it's coming from an organization with an agenda instead of one with objective truth. And they're subjective opinions are without factual basis. Just like the bible.
 
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Well, it stands to reason. When a baby is warm, well fed, and in comfortable surroundings, it smiles, laughs, coos, and in so many ways, exhibits that it is content with life. That is happiness. All of these conditions are present inside the womb before birth as well as in Mom's arms after that.
Click to expand...
We're talking about a fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus. Not a baby. Moreover, for babies, it's been proven over and over that laughter and smiles at the age are attributed to gas and not emotion.
Click to expand...
Really? My, my, how brilliant you are.
Originally Posted by Fantasea
By the way, I posted this in another thread and so far, no rebuttal. Care to take a shot?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a load of sh.... Well, let's just say that it's coming from an organization with an agenda instead of one with objective truth. And they're subjective opinions are without factual basis. Just like the bible.
Click to expand...
See that? I was right. You are brilliant. You know so much more than professionals whose life work is devoted exclusively to babies. But, what could they know that you don't?

In only four sentences you manage to discredit the American College of Pediatricians and the Bible, too. Wow. What an accomplishment.

Although, I haven't seen anything from you on the matter except subjective opinions without factual basis. (Hmmm. That sounds familiar.)

Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?
Click to expand...
 
shuamort said:
We're talking about a fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus. Not a baby.
Click to expand...
How does this square with your view?

The year was 1969 ... Law and politics had not yet "altered medical science."* The terminology of medical texts had not yet been changed to depersonalize life in the womb. (The pregnant woman was "the mother" and the fetus was "the child" or "baby.") McGraw-Hill Inc. was publishing a book on Conception, Birth and Contraception and needed some input from an authority on the subject. It turned to Planned Parenthood and the Sex Information & Education Council of the United States.

"This book provides a solid base for understanding the anatomy of reproduction," wrote Mary S. Calderone, MD, Executive Director of SIECUS, in her Introduction to the 129-page book. "Access to such fine books as this one will assure our young people that ... finally adults are becoming willing to 'tell it like it is.'"

Similarly, "Dr. George Langmyhr of Planned Parenthood Federation of America ... reviewed the material on contraception," state authors Robert J. Demarest and John J. Sciarra, MD, PhD, in their Foreword.

Within the pages of Conception, Birth and Contraception, however, the pro-life position is presented with pictorial and verbal accuracy. The book clearly pushes contraceptives, with some faulty information on the safety of the IUD, etc., but the personhood of the unborn is fully supported throughout the text.

In fact, the book's own glossary definition of the term "fetus" begins with: "An unborn child." Pregnancy, likewise, is defined as: "The condition of being with child."

http://dianedew.com/conceptn.htm
 
Fantasea said:
shuamort said:
Really? My, my, how brilliant you are.See that? I was right. You are brilliant. You know so much more than professionals whose life work is devoted exclusively to babies. But, what could they know that you don't?

In only four sentences you manage to discredit the American College of Pediatricians and the Bible, too. Wow. What an accomplishment.

Although, I haven't seen anything from you on the matter except subjective opinions without factual basis. (Hmmm. That sounds familiar.)

Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?
Click to expand...
I'm going to first politely ask you to stop being a jerk. Might obliged.

Next, it's not "The American College of Pediatricians", it's the American College of Pediatricians® . You find a college to be a credible resource that trademarks its name? Unless, of course, it's using the other definition of "college" meaning an organized body of persons engaged in a common pursuit or having common interests or duties. Then it's that faux pomposity that tries to give their opinions more credence when it's just faked opinions based on religious irrationality.
Click to expand...
 
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Really? My, my, how brilliant you are.See that? I was right. You are brilliant. You know so much more than professionals whose life work is devoted exclusively to babies. But, what could they know that you don't?

In only four sentences you manage to discredit the American College of Pediatricians and the Bible, too. Wow. What an accomplishment.

Although, I haven't seen anything from you on the matter except subjective opinions without factual basis. (Hmmm. That sounds familiar.)

Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?
Click to expand...

I'm going to first politely ask you to stop being a jerk. Might obliged.

Next, it's not "The American College of Pediatricians", it's the American College of Pediatricians® . You find a college to be a credible resource that trademarks its name? Unless, of course, it's using the other definition of "college" meaning an organized body of persons engaged in a common pursuit or having common interests or duties. Then it's that faux pomposity that tries to give their opinions more credence when it's just faked opinions based on religious irrationality.
Click to expand...
Your definition is correct. Which, in no way, detracts from the knowledge possessed by these professionals.

Any chance of getting a response to: "Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?"
 
shuamort said:
We're talking about a fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus. Not a baby.
Click to expand...
When does 'it' become human? When does 'it' become a baby?
shuamort said:
Moreover, for babies, it's been proven over and over that laughter and smiles at the age are attributed to gas and not emotion.
Click to expand...

Show the 'proof'. Are you suggesting then that babies aren't human or what?
 
Fantasea said:
Your definition is correct. Which, in no way, detracts from the knowledge possessed by these professionals.
Any chance of getting a response to: "Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?"
Click to expand...
Montalban said:
When does 'it' become human? When does 'it' become a baby?
Show the 'proof'. Are you suggesting then that babies aren't human or what?
Click to expand...
Let's ask the biologists:

When does life begin?
Question:
Hi, I was wondering about a bioethical issue that's really important today-
abortion. Most of the debate about abortion revolves around when life
begins, so I was wondering when most scientist's believe that life begins,
since you obviously would know more about this subject. You don't have to
give your moral beliefs or anything, but I would just like to know when you
think that life begins... Thanks! =)
Amit Srivastava

Answer 1:
This is an important topic, but even (or especially) for a scientist
you and I must realize that my "moral beliefs" will affect the kind
of answer I give.
Even the unfertilized egg and sperm are "alive" so in some sense
life begins before fertilization! The fertilized egg is certainly
alive, in that it can copy its genetic information (DNA) and it can
divide into more and more cells. The more critical question, I think,
is when that life becomes "human", and that is not a question that
science will be able to answer. Human-ness is a religious, or moral,
or philosophical question that is not likely to have a single
agreed-upon answer.
Steve J Triezenberg

Answer 2:
I agree with Steve on both points. Life is continuous from one generation
to the next. The real question is when does the developing human
organism (embryo, fetus, infant, etc.) attain the basic rights of a person?
These rights include the basic right to life. I also agree that this is a
question of philosophy, not science.
Brian Schwartz

Answer 3:
I also agree on both points. It is part of the job of scientists
to educate people that science will not be able to answer all of the
great questions that plague us. Some of those questions, including the
exact definition of life, will always have a philosophical or even
religious component. Life itself may be easier to define than the
issue of what is human. Will we someday perhaps not care about what
is human, but rather be concerned with "sentience" or the realization
that one is alive and unique with respect to others?
Fascinating discussion!
emayo
 
[QUOTE said:
shuamortOriginally Posted by Fantasea
Your definition is correct. Which, in no way, detracts from the knowledge possessed by these professionals.
Any chance of getting a response to: "Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?"
Click to expand...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Montalban
When does 'it' become human? When does 'it' become a baby?
Show the 'proof'. Are you suggesting then that babies aren't human or what?
Click to expand...
Let's ask the biologists:

When does life begin?
Question:
Hi, I was wondering about a bioethical issue that's really important today-
abortion. Most of the debate about abortion revolves around when life
begins, so I was wondering when most scientist's believe that life begins,
since you obviously would know more about this subject. You don't have to
give your moral beliefs or anything, but I would just like to know when you
think that life begins... Thanks! =)
Amit Srivastava

Answer 1:
This is an important topic, but even (or especially) for a scientist
you and I must realize that my "moral beliefs" will affect the kind
of answer I give.
Even the unfertilized egg and sperm are "alive" so in some sense
life begins before fertilization! The fertilized egg is certainly
alive, in that it can copy its genetic information (DNA) and it can
divide into more and more cells. The more critical question, I think,
is when that life becomes "human", and that is not a question that
science will be able to answer. Human-ness is a religious, or moral,
or philosophical question that is not likely to have a single
agreed-upon answer.
Steve J Triezenberg

Answer 2:
I agree with Steve on both points. Life is continuous from one generation
to the next. The real question is when does the developing human
organism (embryo, fetus, infant, etc.) attain the basic rights of a person?
These rights include the basic right to life. I also agree that this is a
question of philosophy, not science.
Brian Schwartz

Answer 3:
I also agree on both points. It is part of the job of scientists
to educate people that science will not be able to answer all of the
great questions that plague us. Some of those questions, including the
exact definition of life, will always have a philosophical or even
religious component. Life itself may be easier to define than the
issue of what is human. Will we someday perhaps not care about what
is human, but rather be concerned with "sentience" or the realization
that one is alive and unique with respect to others?
Fascinating discussion!
emayo
Click to expand...
If there is a definitive answer in what you quoted it is obscured by the absence of logic in the "opinion". Kindly point out the fact.

I repeat: Any chance of getting a response to: "Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?"

And I'll add:

"If legislation could alter medical science, we could all simply "vote" for the elimination of AIDS worldwide, and that problem would be solved. But of course that's impossible. If AIDS kills today, legislating otherwise would not alter the fact: it kills. In the same sense, if the fetus was a person and deserving of legal rights and protection before abortion was legalized, it is still a person and deserving of legal rights and protection today -- regardless of any paperwork claiming otherwise.

If abortion was wrong on January 21, 1973, it is still wrong today."
 
Fantasea said:
I repeat: Any chance of getting a response to: "Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?" ."
Click to expand...
Maybe you should reiterate because that question doesn't make sense to me.

Fantasea said:
"If legislation could alter medical science, we could all simply "vote" for the elimination of AIDS worldwide, and that problem would be solved. But of course that's impossible. If AIDS kills today, legislating otherwise would not alter the fact: it kills. In the same sense, if the fetus was a person and deserving of legal rights and protection before abortion was legalized, it is still a person and deserving of legal rights and protection today -- regardless of any paperwork claiming otherwise.

If abortion was wrong on January 21, 1973, it is still wrong today."
Click to expand...
AIDS doesn't kill though. It's a false analogy. It's a catalyst but the syndrome does not kill.
 
shuamort said:
Let's ask the biologists:

When does life begin?
Question:
Hi, I was wondering about a bioethical issue that's really important today-
abortion. Most of the debate about abortion revolves around when life
begins, so I was wondering when most scientist's believe that life begins,
since you obviously would know more about this subject. You don't have to
give your moral beliefs or anything, but I would just like to know when you
think that life begins... Thanks! =)
Amit Srivastava

Answer 1:
This is an important topic, but even (or especially) for a scientist
you and I must realize that my "moral beliefs" will affect the kind
of answer I give.
Even the unfertilized egg and sperm are "alive" so in some sense
life begins before fertilization! The fertilized egg is certainly
alive, in that it can copy its genetic information (DNA) and it can
divide into more and more cells. The more critical question, I think,
is when that life becomes "human", and that is not a question that
science will be able to answer. Human-ness is a religious, or moral,
or philosophical question that is not likely to have a single
agreed-upon answer.
Steve J Triezenberg

Answer 2:
I agree with Steve on both points. Life is continuous from one generation
to the next. The real question is when does the developing human
organism (embryo, fetus, infant, etc.) attain the basic rights of a person?
These rights include the basic right to life. I also agree that this is a
question of philosophy, not science.
Brian Schwartz

Answer 3:
I also agree on both points. It is part of the job of scientists
to educate people that science will not be able to answer all of the
great questions that plague us. Some of those questions, including the
exact definition of life, will always have a philosophical or even
religious component. Life itself may be easier to define than the
issue of what is human. Will we someday perhaps not care about what
is human, but rather be concerned with "sentience" or the realization
that one is alive and unique with respect to others?
Fascinating discussion!
emayo
Click to expand...

Firstly, I asked you the question regarding when does a 'zygote' become human. You made the claim that it was different from human. So, you say 'Let's ask biologists' a question I did not ask you. For in case you didn't notice, they talk about 'life' in general. Then they say that they don't know when an 'individual's life' begins. So what you're in fact done is...
when I've asked you why you believe something is so,
answered by giving me quotes by people who say "I don't know"

Thanks for being able to undermine your own argument.
 
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I repeat: Any chance of getting a response to: "Is there a medical or scientific fact or two that you can use to bolster your position relative to those stupid pediatricians?" ."
Click to expand...
Maybe you should reiterate because that question doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Sure. You opine that the pediatricians are wrong about the personhood of the occupant of a womb. Present a few medical or scientific facts to bolster your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
"If legislation could alter medical science, we could all simply "vote" for the elimination of AIDS worldwide, and that problem would be solved. But of course that's impossible. If AIDS kills today, legislating otherwise would not alter the fact: it kills. In the same sense, if the fetus was a person and deserving of legal rights and protection before abortion was legalized, it is still a person and deserving of legal rights and protection today -- regardless of any paperwork claiming otherwise.

If abortion was wrong on January 21, 1973, it is still wrong today."
Click to expand...
AIDS doesn't kill though. It's a false analogy. It's a catalyst but the syndrome does not kill.
Click to expand...
OK. Just change the word "kill" to "the catalyst which causes a weakening of the immune system that has led to the premature death of of many", or any words of your own choosing that will complete the thought to your satisfaction. Then, refute the statement.
 
Fantasea said:
Sure. You opine that the pediatricians are wrong about the personhood of the occupant of a womb. Present a few medical or scientific facts to bolster your opinion.Quote:
OK. Just change the word "kill" to "the catalyst which causes a weakening of the immune system that has led to the premature death of of many", or any words of your own choosing that will complete the thought to your satisfaction. Then, refute the statement.
Click to expand...

Even his 'supporting evidence' on the question of when someone becomes human says "I don't know".
 
Fantasea said:
Sure. You opine that the pediatricians are wrong about the personhood of the occupant of a womb. Present a few medical or scientific facts to bolster your opinion.
Click to expand...
I already did. I posted more opinions (which is what the pediatricians were offering as well) about when life begins. As it turns out, it's quite subjective.

Fantasea said:
if the fetus was a person and deserving of legal rights and protection before abortion was legalized, it is still a person and deserving of legal rights and protection today
Click to expand...
If a peanut was a person and deserving of legal rights and protection before abortion was legalized, it is still a person and deserving of legal rights and protection today. It's a debate not unlike MadLibs™, insert any noun in there for same comic effect and same debating stance. As the old saying goes "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas".
 
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Sure. You opine that the pediatricians are wrong about the personhood of the occupant of a womb. Present a few medical or scientific facts to bolster your opinion.
Click to expand...

I already did. I posted more opinions (which is what the pediatricians were offering as well) about when life begins. As it turns out, it's quite subjective.
Click to expand...
Opinions? Yes, I recall your posting opinions. Facts? No, I don't recall your posting any facts.

When does life begin? What happens when a sperm cell unites with an egg?
 
Fantasea said:
Opinions? Yes, I recall your posting opinions. Facts? No, I don't recall your posting any facts.

When does life begin? What happens when a sperm cell unites with an egg?
Click to expand...
Is an egg life? Is a sperm life? Should we have laws against tampon disposal and masturbation as well?
 
shuamort said:
Is an egg life? Is a sperm life? Should we have laws against tampon disposal and masturbation as well?
Click to expand...

It was clearly stated as a question are these life, when they are united. You are using straw-man. You were asked when did a human begin, and you gave some vague statement about how even babies act like little automatons, and then you posted references from people who don't know.
 
Montalban said:
It was clearly stated as a question are these life, when they are united. You are using straw-man.
Click to expand...
They are not strawmen: : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. Learn the term.

If an egg is life and a sperm is life is a valid question in determining when life begins.
Montalban said:
You were asked when did a human begin, and you gave some vague statement about how even babies act like little automatons,
Click to expand...
I did no such thing.

Montalban said:
and then you posted references from people who don't know.
Click to expand...
No, I posted references from SCIENTISTS who confirmed that defining when life begins is not available when it comes to science and that in fact it is a philosophical/religious debate. Don't cover your eyes when you don't like the answer.
 
shuamort said:
They are not strawmen: : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.Learn the term.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what you did. The question was about when does some 'thing' become 'human'.
You've gone from talking about 'human' to 'a part of a human'. The question that was put to you was
Fantasea said:
When does life begin? What happens when a sperm cell unites with an egg?
Click to expand...

You then introduce an argument about the non-life of sperm, which itself is never defined as human, any more than a finger, blood, or an ear is. And then you moved this around to talk about the constituent parts. It is akin to arguing that humans aren't alive because they're composed in part of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon etc, which are not alive.

So instead of answering the question about if life begins at the junction of a sperm and an egg, you evade that and make up one about is a sperm of itself 'life'. And that is why your argument is a strawman.

shuamort said:
No, I posted references from SCIENTISTS who confirmed that defining when life begins is not available when it comes to science and that in fact it is a philosophical/religious debate. Don't cover your eyes when you don't like the answer.
Click to expand...

You made the assertion that a 'zygote' is different from a human. You were asked to present evidence, and it doesn't support your belief because they say "I don't know".

Specifically at Post 302 you said
shuamort said:
We're talking about a fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus. Not a baby. Moreover, for babies, it's been proven over and over that laughter and smiles at the age are attributed to gas and not emotion.
Click to expand...

In post 307 I asked you several questions in direct relation to this post
Montalban said:
When does 'it' become human? When does 'it' become a baby?

Show the 'proof'. Are you suggesting then that babies aren't human or what
Click to expand...
Which you then provided the 'evidence' that doesn't agree with your assertion in post 308.

That is the problem. You made a statement about when human life begins. You were asked when it begins, and you issue 'support' that doesn't support you, but says "I don't know". You posted these 'I don't know' statements in direct relation to me asking you why you make a statement of asserted fact. If this linear form of argument is too difficult, you should let me know. You make assertion - I ask for evidence - you provide 'evidence' that doesn't support your assertion.
 
Montalban said:
That is the problem. You made a statement about when human life begins. You were asked when it begins, and you issue 'support' that doesn't support you, but says "I don't know". You posted these 'I don't know' statements in direct relation to me asking you why you make a statement of asserted fact. If this linear form of argument is too difficult, you should let me know. You make assertion - I ask for evidence - you provide 'evidence' that doesn't support your assertion.
Click to expand...
Alright, when does it become a human? I'll say it's always a human. From the egg it's a human. From the sperm it's a human. Before egg and sperm meet, it's a human. And they're both just as much alive as a head of lettuce in the ground.
 
shuamort said:
Alright, when does it become a human? I'll say it's always a human. From the egg it's a human. From the sperm it's a human. Before egg and sperm meet, it's a human. And they're both just as much alive as a head of lettuce in the ground.
Click to expand...

Do you have any supporting evidence for your suggestion about babies? You seemed to be suggesting that they weren't 'individuals', or anything more than operating on a automated response level (that's my understanding of what you said). Can you clarify, if I've misunderstood you?
 
Montalban said:
Do you have any supporting evidence for your suggestion about babies? You seemed to be suggesting that they weren't 'individuals', or anything more than operating on a automated response level (that's my understanding of what you said). Can you clarify, if I've misunderstood you?
Click to expand...
You don't think that an egg, sperm, or inseminated egg all from a human aren't human?
 
I have an idea. This may cause some trouble, but I want to know something. I would like all people with religions (who read this) to go to a public place, with many people there, and start praying. Just record what happens, and post here. I will not tell you the reason or purpose for this until someone has done it. I myself would, but I am atheist.
 
shuamort said:
You don't think that an egg, sperm, or inseminated egg all from a human aren't human?
Click to expand...
They are part of a human, but I believed you were trying to differentiate between a 'human being' and being part of a human.
 
Jub-Jub said:
I have an idea. This may cause some trouble, but I want to know something. I would like all people with religions (who read this) to go to a public place, with many people there, and start praying. Just record what happens, and post here. I will not tell you the reason or purpose for this until someone has done it. I myself would, but I am atheist.
Click to expand...

As to people praying in a public place, I believe a 'church' is a public place. You may not have heard of these things, because people pray in public all the time.

What 'record' do you want kept?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom