Syntho-sis

From my experience it's better to observe the moon when it is half full...You gain more clarity and fullness that way...thus a better picture.

I'm not sure if somebody already mentioned that..I'll hafta post some of my own moon pics

I've moved on as well, I wasn't attacking anyone directly either.

OK, have a look at post 72. Now it's your turn. Can you define a human being in such a way as includes both fetuses and adults but excludes things you don't mind killing?

Most certainly, I think that life begins once the cell has been fertilized in the womb..and the actual process of development begins.

If you disagree that is your choice. There is no scientific proof thats classifies differently, and any definition that you might find in a biological textbook would be ambiguous on such matters.

It is up to us as humans to distinguish these types of things. There will be no point of a human being's development that we can say "here you are, this is life!"

tbc

I didn't say that you made fun of me personally, I said that appeals to ridicule and emotion do not persuade me.

 

You've used appeals to ridicule and emotion several times in this thread. Here are some examples:

Is this not a thread for the question as to whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not? Thats seems to be where the debate was the entire time, long before I posted.

But like several of you have said, I am not the one to make that decision for other individuals. Whether I am offended or disagree with it has nothing to do with it.

It is your choice if you are willing to let science supersede your morals.

^ That is not to say that science should be ignored for the sake of morality based off of human emotions.

But since science is a continuous process of understanding, why should we allow ourselves to make shallow decisions and discard our principles at the first sight of some study or w/e, when new evidence could come along and make us look like fools?

Without out the foundation our inquiries into the observable world are pointless...

Morality could be thought of as what we all agree on to be right or wrong.

Like mooeypoo said there are certain times when it may be necessary to abort. But only in extreme situations. Where the baby is more likely to die anyway and cannot be saved.

To answer another question once a sperm cell has been fertilized I would say that is the beginning of life. (In my opinion only)

To say that we should attempt to stop auto-aborts and common biological processes if we are not going to allow abortion, is utter nonsense.

It would be as if I said that since lions sometimes attack humans and eat them, that it makes it okay for me to do the same.

to be continued....

Mooey, I'm going to have to disagree with you about fetuses being alive. They are definitely alive. They might not be "a life" but they are clearly alive. They have their own metabolism, though the mother provides food and oxygen. They make their own ATP. A zygote is metabolically even active before it implants on the uterus. A lot of cell divisions occur before it even has anything to implant through.

So technically we are ending life?

I need to go through and read the posts after I left...

Merged post follows:

I've never been real swayed by the "potential vs real" argument. Is there a chance it will turn into a Vienna Sausage instead of a human being? Not really. So it's kinda moot. It's GOING to turn into a human being regardless of any other action, so that's not at all like the situation prior to fertilization.

 

That having been said, I've never been real swayed by the "life uber alles" argument either. Life is not paramount. Not in my book at any rate. A great many things are quite a lot more important. This is a moral argument, not a strictly logic-based one.

 

One thing is for sure -- appeals to scorn and ridicule won't win this one, Syntho-sis. Making fun of me tends to make me walk out the door, not listen and discuss. And it's usually pretty clear that when people are waving their arms about and emoting that they're not really listening to what I might want to say, so what's the point?

At what point was I ever making fun of you??

Did you really just post an argument in a LONG thread and claimed there is no discussion about evidence? did you even bother reading the thread you chose to post in, or did you just assume we talk out of orifices that are not usually meant for verbal communication?

 

We have quite a few threads in this forum (past and current) that speak of the various aspects of abortion and about what is and isn't considered life.

 

You're not the first to claim abortion to be wrong, and there ARE (surprise?) "skeptics" who "believe" abortion to be wrong, whether the evidence point to life after or before the third trimester.

 

The people in this thread were decent enough to post their opinions as well as detailed explanations. They did not post an of-the-cuff pow-wow conclusion just for the hell of it. People put the time to debate, as you should have.

 

Instead, you chose to reopen an existing thread without reading it first, and then have the audacity to claim no evidence or scientific arguments were posted.

 

Seriously? Did you go over the evidence before jumping in and claiming there are none?

 

 

I would say that we, here, in SFN, have earned the the benefit of the doubt that we're not talking out of thin air in a thread that is almost 60 posts long.

 

If you want to debate, post an argument and stand behind it. Don't go around blaming us for being one-sided when you don't even bother reading our initial claims.

 

You're not "getting flak" over your opinion, you're "getting flak" over your attitude.

 

 

~moo

I'm sure Dr. Mengele had alot of evidence from his research as well....

Just stating an opinion.

I'm repeating myself now, What evidence justifies the loss of human life? (Human, I know is up for debate- using the term.)

There is none.

And I did review the evidence, I simply disagree with it from a scientific perspective.

Am I not allowed to disagree?

But that is begging the question. We do forbid murder and genocide. And we allow abortion and killing animals. We don't think that fetuses are human, so that is all consistent. If you want to say that a fetus is a human, what evidence do you have for that? How about you define what a human is?

Ok I shall do that....

But first, why don't you define exactly what is not a human being?

Merged post follows:

Again, though, you're equating potential humans with humans. And by that reasoning, we should disallow women from menstruating instead of becoming pregnant, as that destroys a "potential human," which it seems by extension of your logic you would claim is morally equivalent to an actual human, which would then make every woman a murderer.

 

I, on the other hand, say that that is not a human being. I don't know when human beings "begin," which is to say that I don't think there is a single point. It is a continuum, and to pretend that there is some non-arbitary dividing line is counterproductive. I don't know when and to what degree to begin considering a developing fetus as a human being, because there isn't an objective answer. That's why I'm "pro-choice," because it's a complicated and permanently ambiguous moral question and a decision that I'm not prepared to make for other people.

Ok then is it fair to say that you and I are not human beings?

Think about your statement

Lack of ignorence is not a justification for such an action.

Attempting to prevent menstration is like telling people they can not live near the ocean because they might be destroyed by hurricanes or a myriad of other factors.

I was not equationg it with that.

You missunderstood me, and then ignored the rest of my argument.

Going out of your way to prevent life is what I was talking about.

Letting it be prevented by nature itself is a different matter.

Why have any rules regarding life at all, if we are going to allow abortion?

Now make sure you understand what I said before you post...

Merged post follows:

But that is begging the question. We do forbid murder and genocide. And we allow abortion and killing animals. We don't think that fetuses are human, so that is all consistent. If you want to say that a fetus is a human, what evidence do you have for that? How about you define what a human is?

Circular logic

^You sir, are yourself begging the question.

I'm going to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. My point was simply that a "potential human" is not a human, and trying to prevent the loss of all "potential humans" almost immediately devolves into absurdity. Especially the "how many people were never born" type arguments. When the sperm fertilized the egg that became the zygote that developed into me, thousands of other sperm just barely missed their chance. That's thousands of other possible genetic combinations that different circumstances might have favored, thousands of "potential humans" who will never have the chance to be born. But is that in anywhere near the same as thousands of actual humans being killed? No. No it is not. And how is a freshly fertilized zygote SO different from a separate egg and sperm a moment earlier? It isn't. The process is continuous, and the distinction is arbitrary. As will the distinction always be arbitrary, even though somewhere along the way a human being emerges. "Exactly" where is always just going to be an arbitrary distinction, like many things in biology. It is always going to be a moral grey area, and we just have to deal with that. A great man once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Do not set yourself as an arbiter of absolutes where none exist, nor pretend that it is a settled issue when there is nothing to settle.

Yes I understand, I simply have feelings about this topic, and to sweep it under the rug does not seem to be the correct approach to me. (Even though there is nothing any of us could do about it. All we can do, is simply debate as to it's moral significance. Remember, I am not the one who posted this thread.)

I am not proposing that we prevent the death of all potential human lives. Rather that we should disallow the death of any human life, if it is in our ability to do so.

Just because we can't stop something from happening does not mean that we should allow it to carry on, or "just be okay with it."

In my opinion people who agree with abortion, are no different than people who are okay with murder or genocide or suicide. Or any loss of life.

And we can debate all day about exactly what life is.

But why allow most potential humans to become humans, and destroy some?

Again, for what reason?

Once again, no reason, no matter how scientific, or intuitive, supersedes our obligation as human beings to protect other human beings from harm.

I wonder how many great men have said that sort of thing?

I don't know, Syntho-sis, how many "potential humans" are lost because women menstruate before becoming pregnant? How many potentially great minds have been lost to humanity because we don't all constantly procreate from puberty onwards? Every one of my sperm currently living, combined with every ovum in every woman on Earth, is a "potential human." That's trillions and trillions of potential humans, and every last one of them is going to be "murdered" by never getting the chance to combine and develop in a uterus. What a holocaust! Truly, history will judge me as a monster.

Natural biological processes ^^.

By your supposition it is perfectly fine to practice cannibalism, because the animal world does so.

Or bring up survival of the fittest- we are all just surviving and keeping the population down so there are more resources for us.

Or even Murder, why should we consider it "morally" wrong?

Or anything at all? Why don't we all just do what feels good, when we feel like it?

Merged post follows:

Well, yes, we often go out of our way to destroy sperm, and sometimes skin cells or pancreatic cells. As you say, these could potentially become a human life (the latter with appropriate future technology), but no one outlaws their destruction. When I said trying to convert all potential human life to actual human life was impractical, I meant impossibly so, not just a minor inconvenience.

^ For what reasons do we destroy them?

Ex: Such as in medicine when surgery is being performed, right?

Is that what you were getting at?

For what reasons do we abort babies? (oops I meant "fetuses.")

Give me a list of practical reasons for doing such a thing...

Well, the above would make sense if you considered the fetus a human being, or that potential human beings were extremely valuable. The former depends on your definition of human, and the latter would suggest that after outlawing abortion we should require that everyone have sex with every girl they meet without using birth control. It is quite impractical at best to worry about potential human beings.

^ Oh yea that makes perfect sense....Not

Are those valid excuses for extermination of (potential) life? I'm sure the Nazis had some nice neat reasons as well...For the destruction of Jew, and Catholics, and homosexuals, etc.

I do consider potential human beings important, and don't bring up sperm.

Do you go out of your way to destroy sperm cells? Or skin cells? Or pancreatic tissue? (all of which have the potential to become life with adequate technology.)

Most likely not, if fetuses are not important why destroy them in the first place?

For what reason? Because they are inconvenient?

And I suppose mentally retarded people are inconvenient as well?

Especially the ones that need to be cared for?

Why waste money and resources on an such projects?

If it is "unimportant"?

Indeed.

 

Though I feel like getting pregnant and aborting it just to spite people who believe that it is a sin no matter what.

Abortion is by far one of the worst things that this society currently practices (legally).

Imagine a 1000 yrs from now when anthropologists study us, and they realize that while we disdained genocide and considered the holocaust a slaughter of innocent lives, we were okay with sucking fetuses out of pregnant women and then throwing them in a bio hazard containment bag. Like some piece of garbage.

Whether it is sin or not has nothing to do with it. It is morally wrong to destroy potential human beings.

How many great minds have we ended, for minuscule reasons?

No reason, no matter how "significant", allows for the destruction of potential human beings.

Tell me this, would you see it under the same light if your mother had aborted you?

Exactly...

And I know that will most likely get severe flak for this post, but that is perfectly fine. I look forward to seeing what "evidence" you skeptics can actually present...Scientifically or otherwise.

I think what he meant to say is the universe runs out of neg entropy.

 

That is it runs out of available energy---energy in some form that life and other processes can use.

 

Would that way of putting it satisfy you? There is no mystery how that happens---we see energy being degraded all the time:

e.g. the planet absorbs highgrade 5000 kelvin sunlight and radiates off an equal amount of lowgrade 300 kelvin waste heat.

 

Everything of interest having been accomplished by degrading that energy from 5000 down to 300 (approximately or whatever).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Heat death would only work though if we lived in a closed universe to begin with, which it's not known if we do or not, right?

And the videos are much appreciated, I've yet to watch them though

Sweet thanks Mokele. Don't know where my genetics lie...but o far I've been gaining pretty well. My brother has good genetics for it too so maybe....seems like he got more from my fatherside, where I got from my mother's side...highly intelligent family...but rich and probably not very active...I don't seem to follow that....hopefully that part I get from my father!

 

And suga I ralther not do steroids or anything like that. The most I'll do is take a protien shake after a workout. I think I'll start doing. I don't want to be arnold just like van damme -ish. If I can achieve that I should be in good shape to get into MMA then.

 

I'll need ridiculous strength with my back issues.

HAHA- You're not going to get as big as Arnold overnight. I don't think that is something you need to worry about.

blow em all to hell...and let god sort em out..

can't talk to criminals

I came back to post that I concluded a similar thing. You're entirely correct, padren.

 

The universe doesn't really have these units called seconds, nor would it have it conveniently quantified for our benefit and/or instruments we use for measuring time's passage. So my error was in following the thought based on our self-assigned, numerical divisions of time -- instead of on reality (i.e. the actual universe).

That is the point I was trying to get across...The way we measure is simply just a system of organized amounts and symbols based off of their numerical values.

Time is a real effect in our universe. Just because humans invented a way of measuring it, does not mean that it is simply an abstract idea.

That is like saying that volume does not exist, if you have no way of measuring it. Or length, there are many examples.

The packets that you spoke of earlier sort of reminded me of the quanta- packets of energy.

There's a thought, in what ways do quantum mechanics apply to the infinite or vice-versa. Both are mysterious concepts, that we have yet to fully understand.

Or something along those lines haha

Flip a coin with your eyes closed. It could either be heads or tails, but you won't know until you look. Superposition is like that, except that they say that both states exist superimposed until you look, not just that you don't know.

Ok makes sense, and how does this apply to waves?

No, I meant literally add them up, to look for a pattern.

1/2 =

1/2 + 1/4 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 =

...

See if you can find a pattern.

Here's what I got...In decimal form-

1/2 =0.5

1/2 + 1/4 =0.75

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 =0.875

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 =0.9375

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32=0.96875

In fractions-

1/2 = 1/2

1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 7/8

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 = 15/16

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 = 31/32

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64= 63/64

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + 1/128= 127/128

I see the pattern, what are you trying to show though? What does this mean?

Maybe in the form of an analogy. I'm attempting to understand this concept...

Hey all,

Haven't had the opportunity of introducing myself yet. So, here I am. I look forward to expanding my knowledge of all things science and becoming a respectable member of your forum.

Thank you

It could be there is a minimum time interval (eg due to quantum mechanics). Otherwise, time is infinitely divisible, ie you could divide a time interval into as many parts as you want. That does not mean infinite time though.

 

Syntho-sis, add up the numbers 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... and tell me if you see a pattern.

Yes I think I know what you are getting at...As the amount of intervals making up the whole> 1 > increase, their values decrease.

No fraction added to the whole number 1 will equal 2.

Am I in the right ball park of what you were demonstrating?

But could you ever get to the point where you could no longer divide something?

Isn't that what Max Plank demonstrated? Does a Planck length apply to the concept of time?

(haha I am a beginner on most of these things so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.)

I'm certainly glad that we are back to the original topic...

Things definitely got out of hand. By no means am I attempting to force my personal ideas onto others. Nor am I trying to present my religious thoughts as science.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed the question I posted a few days ago. (This was in the middle of another topic of debate and got sidelined)

But here it is--

It is similar to Zeno's dichotomy paradox

Consider that one second of time has occurred. Before one half of a second can occur, one quarter must elapse . Before a forth can elapse; one eighth must occur; and so on.

Until the actual second is realized.

This is puzzling...Has a second even really "happened"? By this reasoning it would not even be able to be 1/2...because you could continuously divide.

Or could you use the argument that the measurement of one second encompasses all the irrational measurements that make it up?

Now I know that mathematicians no longer consider Zeno's paradoxes valid, but I think they bring an interesting perspective to the infinite as both a mathematical property and a metaphysical concept.

Is it fair to say that an infinite amount of "time" has happened within one second?

Think of fractals, that should get the idea across.

It's funny this was originally meant to be a mathematical topic...

But instead it sort of became an ID vs. Evolution debate. I suppose that is mostly my fault.

The question "Can God conceive infinity?" Is meant to be metaphorical.

This topic (at least in my mind) has more to do with the open questions of cosmology involving infinity. It seems to me that we are just beating a dead horse. I'm not sure of what it is the discussion is about at this point.

Also, I enjoyed the videos. It helped point out my innumerable fallacies and understand how to better hold a scientific debate. Also raised some interesting questions...

There are "true believers" there but mostly it's a combination of a troll tank and people that just like practicing their debate skills on topics they wouldn't otherwise try to defend.

 

One of the best arguments I read there involved tectonic plates/continental drift and how it wouldn't work on a "flat earth" and cited how dinosaurs were on all the continents etc as evidence they were once all connected.

 

So the Flat Earther suggested "how do we know dinosaurs couldn't have made primitive boats?" which while ridiculous completely derailed the thread into a near unfalseable subtopic. It was pretty hilarious.

I suppose defending a false argument would be a good way to develop debate skills. It would force you to be extra careful about -fallacies- present in your own arguments.

I haven't adequate time to respond to all of your posts at the moment, but bear with me I shall be back...

Maybe the universe has always existed (infinite regress)

If something exists on an infinite time-scale anything that can happen, has already happened...

aleph-null

Your existence has already occurred so therefore you do not exist at this present moment...

Unless what you are stating is that the universe recycles itself an infinite amount of times.

^Could be...Keeps going back to infinite regress no matter what factor you use...turtles upon turtles.

Merged post follows:

Can the gods conceive infinity?

 

Only if they can draw fractals by hand.

Or measure the coastline of England.