Kerry says he believes that life starts at conception

DYERSVILLE, Iowa — As Sen. John Kerry campaigned across Iowa yesterday with Gov. Tom Vilsack, widely reported to be on Kerry's vice-presidential short list, both men dodged repeated questions about whether their joint appearance might be a preview of the Democratic ticket.

But even as he tried to avoid making news, Kerry broke ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters in the Midwest.

President Bush's campaign said these instances are further evidence of what it says is Kerry's propensity for misleading flip-flops.

"John Kerry's ridiculous claim to hold conservative values and his willingness to change his beliefs to fit his audience betrays a startling lack of conviction on important issues like abortion that will make it difficult for voters to give him their trust," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman.

It was the same body

Yeah. In fact, you couldn't even tell us apart (my mom was VERY big during her pregnancy--tough delivery too).

your DNA, or your soul - whichever name you wish

Is there a comet coming around soon to pick you up? Sneakers ready?

As to what the morula values, I repeat: not all members of the species must demonstrate all the characteristics of the species at all - or even any - of the time.

Changing your mind again. Finally you agree with my assertion that initially we do not value anything. I feel like I've succeeded in some small way with you. Now if I can just bring you back to earth.

Your statement that the human default position is one of no values and so it's incumbent on the valuer to support his views is in itself a value statement. It's wrong,

Actually, the "default position" is a matter of biological fact, as you finally surmised in your previous paragaph.

That the burden of justification is on those making positive assertions and declaring values, is indeed a value statement. Mostly it is the value of avoiding the absurd. Whether it is because I'm a morula and cannot value anything, or because it is something I've never experienced or never considered and so cannot value, it is absurd to come to me, in those situations, and ask me to justify my absence of those values. You can if you like. If I'm a morula, you'll probably get the silent treatment. In the other situation, you might get a "I don't know what you are talking about." Interesting answers will only come from those who value the thing in question.

I'll give you another simple example of this absurdity (in addition to the morula one I gave)--How do you value the new GT6-XVR5?

but it points out that you believe/know/understand/have a drive toward unconditional Truth that leads you to have this discussion.

How do you know it doesn't point out a drive toward conditional truth? Or just plain old down home country style deep fried wuggy nuggy truth?

And, if you truly believe your own statement, you wouldn't feel a need for psychotropics in order to support it.

No man, the peyote isn't for making sense, it is to better appreciate all this infinite love, unconditional truth, I'm-a-morula, DNA-is-soul, intrinsic-guiding-force, voodoo stuff. I'll take a few puffs and meet you in orbit, dude.

Are you seriously suggesting that because the morula demonstrates a certain characteristic, that that is the "default position"? From that definition, the default position of humans is a lack of speech, lack of limbs, etc.

The default position is not the lowest common denominator, it is the one *chosen* or most often demonstrated, when there are multiple possibilities.

The fact is that you're not going to be asking a precognitive human being a question of values, you're not going to ask any creature who is not human, and you're not going to demand or expect an answer from someone who does not speak your language. There are certain givens in the scenario.

For humans, the default position is the possession of basically the same values - as you agreed yesterday - , self preservation, propagation, pleasure, etc.

Basic philosophy 101 and support for your own value statement shouldn't produce so much consternation. Each of the terms and precepts that I used were explained in the reference I gave. To save time, I suggested that you read the Spitzer website which explains the definition of values, "unconditional" and "ultimate Love."

Alisdair McIntyre discussed the cargo culture state of philosophical discourse at the end of the last milenium, but I believe that he agreed with Dr. Spitzer that careful definitions will allow discourse on ethics.

Very good. That is correct. The default position is lack of everything. All things develop over time. We start with nothing. That was, is, and depending on skull thickness, will continue to be the point.

The default position is not the lowest common denominator, it is the one *chosen* or most often demonstrated, when there are multiple possibilities.

Here's an idea--how about if *I* decide what *I* mean. Must I remind you of the original context? It is about burden of proof. Just like I can't be expected to assume as true every crack-pot theory that comes my way until I prove them false, I also cannot be expected to hold values for every possible person, place, thing, or idea in this universe pending my explanation for why I should NOT value them. Initially I have no idea what X is--I do not value X. Later I may have a passing peripheral experience with X--I still probably have no significant value for X. If you value X and you want me to value X too, then YOU must explain to ME why I should. That is, the burden is naturally upon you.

As for the specific example I responded to about valuing a fetus, there is no drive that automatically shifts the balance for all humans to value the life of the fetus over the other competing values. That is why there is no agreement on the issue. In fact, with humans there is no guarantee of any particular value hierarchy. A person can even come to value a thing more than his own life. The proper burden of discussion in the abortion debate would be to have a prolifer explain his value for a fetus and to have a prochoicer explain his value for the convience of the mother, for example.

For humans, the default position is the possession of basically the same values - as you agreed yesterday - , self preservation, propagation, pleasure, etc.

A creature capable of valuing things will have values stimulated by its biological drives. The default position is still NO values (and NO drives, for that matter). Even with drives, it takes a level of sensory development, cognitive ability, and experience to be able to form the concepts of those entities that will be valued. The burden is STILL upon the valuer not the person who lacks the value. Sure, if I say that I am indifferent about food or sex, then I am lying. However, if I say that I am indifferent about the Theory of Crux Dieto Conflagorum, then I may very well be telling you the truth, and it is ridiculous to pimp me for an explanation--I hold no value for it.

Basic philosophy 101 and support for your own value statement shouldn't produce so much consternation.

Bad analysis. Any consternation is due to frustration at repitition of the bleeding obvious.

To save time, I suggested that you read the Spitzer website which explains the definition of values, "unconditional" and "ultimate Love."

Maybe I'll take a look at it sometime when I'm in a more poetic and less analytic mood. Honestly though, the language you quoted strongly rings of a kind of new age mystical pychobabble. Sure, it is possible to ascribe meaningful, precise, and grounded definitions to any string, including nonsensical sounding ones like "infinite truth" or "ultimate love", but of all the rubbish I've read that started that way, it also ended that way. I need some kind of hook to indicate my time would be worthwhile. Sorry if that's too frank, but that's my experience. It's understanding that inspires me in this context, not flowery, emotive, or hyperbolic language.

Okay, that's our problem. My definition of "default position" is not the same as yours. I was going on my experience with machines and software. (Just as the FreeRepublic website has "defaults" for subscribers which can be modified). Standard terminology

Reasonable explanation, except the "standard terminology" part. There's nothing standard about it, which is why context and elucidation are important.

While we may start with nothing other than our DNA in a single cell, we do not start *as* nothing. We begin as human beings.

It's hard to justify any such statment using "begin" without sweeping the whole space-time continuum thing under a rug.

Every society of humans has injunctions against killing other humans. While the expression of that value may vary, and while individuals may not know that they should not kill, it is a constant among rational humans.

It's a rare society that hasn't had allowances, and even incentives for killing other humans--war, duals, executions, self-defense, etc. You are very selective about what history shows to be stereotypical among human societies.

I suspect your true frustration is with this obvious fact.

I suspect that you don't really suspect that. And you'll find my frustration much relieved by recognitions such as the one you led with.

In order to support your view that embryos have no value, you must deny all value.

I never said that I didn't value embryos. Even so, this statement is false. Sounds like another example of poetry over substance.

I've been reading "What You Can't Not Know" by J. Budzewziski and find myself agreeing with him on the simple fact that we all do know that there are basic values.

The fact that every society has *exceptions* as to which humans may and which may not be killed actually supports the position that they hold the value that humans may not kill humans. I know that society will hold you responsible for killing a human, unless you follow society's rule for the exceptions. And, I doubt that you will get off on a plea of "I didn't know."

A simple Google search for the term "default position" will confirm the meaning as a standard term for technology, including the Dell computer, Windows XP and Netscape I'm using to type this post. And I assure you that Dr. Spitzer's terms are "standard" for ethics discussions.

"Begin" is another simple term. Each of the human embryology texts I have state that human life begins at fertilization. The more technical, medically-oriented will denote specific cellular structures that appear at the beginning of the individual human life.

All in all, you have not supported your claim that the default position for humans is one of no values. The "default position" for FR is not a blue screen or even the sign up page - log out and you'll see it. The default position for humans - especially any that you or I would feel the need to convince of our values - is one of a thinking, talking (and, in our case, typing), adult who notices patterns, has seen consequences, and whose thinking is affected by their environment as well as their genetics. It could be they are influenced by their soul, but I can't measure that, and have not made a strong point of claiming the distinction between the soul and the mind and body as influences for values.

Can you turn your point around and persuade me that values only exist for the one(s) who value, without denying that there are any values at all? Which, why, how do you know?

find myself agreeing with him on the simple fact that we all do know that there are basic values.

Yes, it would seem obvious that one thing core to any thinking creature is that it values things, and that creatures of similar nature would value similar things. However, it is suprising how dedicated some reasonably intelligent people are to floating predicates.

The fact that every society has *exceptions* as to which humans may and which may not be killed actually supports the position that they hold the value that humans may not kill humans. I know that society will hold you responsible for killing a human, unless you follow society's rule for the exceptions. And, I doubt that you will get off on a plea of "I didn't know."

Or, maybe it is the excpeptions of which humans may NOT be killed that supports the position that they hold the value that humans MAY kill humans. Perhaps the formation of societies grew out of the exceptions made for members of the society. Perhaps the value for members grew from people's value for themselves and the recognition of the personal benefit a society can bring. This would seem to coincide with the practice of wholesale slaughter of foreign peoples, such as following sieges and during empire building.

A simple Google search for the term "default position" will confirm the meaning as a standard term for technology, including the Dell computer, Windows XP and Netscape I'm using to type this post.

Naturally, so it is even more confusing how knowing this, knowing the context of my words, and reading my elaborations, you still didn't know what I was talking about.

And I assure you that Dr. Spitzer's terms are "standard" for ethics discussions.

Whether Dr. Spitzer uses the words "default position" in a some narrow sense or not I cannot say. However he uses them, I assure you that Dr. Spitzer does not form the standard for the study of ethics. That there is any standard meaning, say among ethics professors, is doubtful as even a search of the entire Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy brings up remarkably few hits.

I know English as well as the next guy, and when "default" doesn't refer to its literal meaning of failure, it refers to the state of a thing that precedes some specified action upon a thing. As a person's ability to even hold a position develops over time and is affected by his experiences, it is obvious that his ultimate default position is a tabula rasa.

"Begin" is another simple term. Each of the human embryology texts I have state that human life begins at fertilization. The more technical, medically-oriented will denote specific cellular structures that appear at the beginning of the individual human life.

Quite simple term. It refers to some chosen time point when a time period of interest follows. Since the reality of the universe is that time flows smoothly (to our best measurements, and theoretically above Planck time), nature affords us no *particular* time for any of its processes. Any stipulated time point is necessarily vague at some level (above the measurable or theoretical limits).

Even the formation of cellular structures is a process that occurs smoothly over time.

Everybody uses time points freely without assuming that someone is going to take that usage as some sort of physical evidence that time is not continuus. In particular, when embryologists define different stages of development, I doubt they are intenting to promulgate a new counterintuitive physics.

All in all, you have not supported your claim that the default position for humans is one of no values. The "default position" for FR is not a blue screen or even the sign up page - log out and you'll see it.

O brother. One step forward, two steps back. Why, once you finally understand what I'm talking about, would you revert back to misinterpretation? Not getting it in the first place was just dense, deliberately miscontruing is rather rude.

The default position for humans - especially any that you or I would feel the need to convince of our values - is one of a thinking, talking (and, in our case, typing), adult who notices patterns, has seen consequences, and whose thinking is affected by their environment as well as their genetics.

If you want to start a brand new conversation about something other than anything I have ever discussed, we can do that, but not under false pretenses. Maybe you want to define the "default position" of a person as his state of values the moment before you meet him. Fine. As long as you are clear that you are using those words in a different sense than I was. We can argue from that point, and I would start by saying that at the least, you have no gaurantee of any hierarchy of values for the person in front of you, and there will also be an enormous amount of things in the universe of objects and ideas for which that person really will have NO opinion. AND, if he has no opinion, it is not incumbent upon him to explain why.

Can you turn your point around and persuade me that values only exist for the one(s) who value, without denying that there are any values at all? Which, why, how do you know?

Valuing is something people do. There is no thought without thinking, and there is no value without valuing. Perhaps you deny that there are any thoughts at all.

And I don't see how this turns "my point around". Perhaps you will tell me what you think my point is.

I'm glad you agree "that one thing core to any thinking creature is that it values things.." This was what I explained as my point way back there: that humans have values. The norm is not what humans do when in the embryologic state, when they are ignorant of the subject, or what they value when asleep.

I would like to know some examples of what you describe as "some reasonably intelligent people are to floating predicates."

It doesn't make sense that "the excpeptions of which humans may NOT be killed that supports the position that they hold the value that humans MAY kill humans." Unless we need to redifine "exceptions."

And, the comment about Dr. Spitzer's philosophical terminology actually had nothing to do with the term "default position." It was in regard to your dismissive comments about Dr. Spitzer's words.

This forum does not have strict rules as to topics or discussion form. In any conversation, the only requirement should be support for statements. Personally, I like posts with outside references rather than flat statements of opinion and ad hominum attempts to dismiss another's comments. Since we were discussing when life begins and your statement that the "default position" of humans is one of no values and that the one who values must necessarily convince the one who does not, it appears to me that the conversation has been on topic.

This was what I explained as my point way back there: that humans have values.

Maybe, but unfortunately it had nothing to do with my argument to which it was intended as a response. I have already written that values are a part of human nature.

The norm is not what humans do when in the embryologic state, when they are ignorant of the subject, or what they value when asleep.

Humans lack a particular value before they ever hold that value, and many things they will never value at all.

I would like to know some examples of what you describe as "some reasonably intelligent people are to floating predicates."

The actual quote refers to people being "dedicated" to floating predicates. English is very flexible. It allows us to make complete sentences that really make no sense without some implicit concepts. We can talk about thinking without ever mentioning or refering to any thinker. However, a thinker is implied and to deny so is to leave floating the predicate "thinks about X." The same is true for people who seem to think that valuing is concievable without a valuer. They are the same type of folks who would build from sentences like "Eat at Joe's" a whole philosophy about "eating" without reference to any eater.

It doesn't make sense that "the excpeptions of which humans may NOT be killed that supports the position that they hold the value that humans MAY kill humans." Unless we need to redifine "exceptions."

There is nothing in the meaning of "exceptions" that requires that people primarily value preserving human life. You made such a claim that people first value NOT killing then make exceptions for killing. You offered no reason why it couldn't be the other way around. In fact, a look at history would seem to show that people have often taken great value in killing. Who's to say that the value of not killing wasn't a later development of prehistoric men who found killing other men as useful as killing tigers or mammoths?

In fact, as I pointed out, even in historical times killing has been seen as a great value. Etruscans routinely slaughtered slaves and captives in sacrificial ceremonies. Rome slaughtered 500,000 inhabitants of Carthage. Caesar bragged to have slaughtered 1,000,000 Gauls. The philosopher king Marcus Aurelius waged vengeful genocide against Germanic tribes. Gladiatorial games were especially popular when people were killed. The 30 years war was characterized by slaughtering villages with religious differences. The Mongols would put entire cities to the sword just so the word of mouth would scare other towns into quick surrender. Conquistadors found it very useful to slaughter thousands of Indians. Mao claimed that his followers killed 20 million people. Pol Pot's followers killed 1/8th of Cambodians. From ancient Babylonia to modern times, killing has been deamed very valuable by many people. One could argue that the West's current high regard for abstract human life is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Since we were discussing when life begins and your statement that the "default position" of humans is one of no values and that the one who values must necessarily convince the one who does not, it appears to me that the conversation has been on topic.

The default position is of no values, as you already at one point agreed to once recognizing my use of "default position". I could appreciate your stated high-minded principles of debate better if it weren't that you then later chose to revert to deliberately misinterpreting my meaning. You are off topic because of that. You switched topic by reverting my point of development of thought from nothing, to one of your own desire to misconstrue my use of "default position" as the set of already developed values of some person you just met.

I haven't been able to reply for a couple of days, due to travel. However, in the interest of "high minded" -ness, your post does require a response since you state that I have deliberately misinterpreted your meaning.

I never agreed that the human "default postition" is one of no values. I did eventually, in the course of our dialogue, say that I finally understood your definition and that I disagreed with you on that definition, as the term has a definition in general use. The use of the term is what prompted me to respond to you in the first place, as well as your assertion that

"" Absence of value doesn't require justification. Values are applied only to things which we initially have no value for. Justifications are applied to things we initially have no justification for. By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things, even many of the things we are privy to.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165523/posts?page=144#144
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165523/posts?page=107#107

Interesting: when I repeated the Google search on the term "default position" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22default+position%22&btnG=Google+Search

I found a discussion of the point I believe that appears similar to yours:
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/religion/existential-negativism.html
However, this is not a case of "no values" by "unthinking" humans, this is a case of rules for resolving arguments between (thinking) humans who hold competing values, one who says "no" and one who says the answer is "yes." Where 2 values are in conflict, it is incumbent on the one who has the postitive position - who says, "yes" - to prove his point to the one who holds the negative position - the one who says "no."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.