Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exDemMom

What is this “life” you are talking about? You’re a high priestess of Science. You’ve created a psychologically convenient, but wholly irrelevant definition of “life”. If a squirrel dies in the forest, a monkey in the jungle, or a “life” in your Petri dish what difference is that to me?

When does human life begin? At what point in your “life” continuum” can I know I’m dealing with a human being?

If “life” is a continuum at what point would you be arrested for murder for killing off a human life?

Don’t you see how unscientific your answer is? If it is just a “life” continuum until death what difference does it make when you end “life”? By your definition all “life” is equivalent. That’s not very thoughtful or scientific is it?

Imagine a situation where there is only enough of a life saving solution - Solution X - to save either the “life” growing within your body or the “life” growing within my Belgian mare. How do we choose who gets Solution X?


92 posted on 10/03/2012 5:10:08 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]


To: 1010RD
What is this “life” you are talking about? You’re a high priestess of Science. You’ve created a psychologically convenient, but wholly irrelevant definition of “life”. If a squirrel dies in the forest, a monkey in the jungle, or a “life” in your Petri dish what difference is that to me?

When you have to try to discredit science by comparing it to religion, that tells me very clearly that you have a low opinion of religion.

When does human life begin? At what point in your “life” continuum” can I know I’m dealing with a human being?

If “life” is a continuum at what point would you be arrested for murder for killing off a human life?

I have already explained over and over in several posts the objective, scientific definition of life, and why it is impossible to choose a distinct start point. Life does not arise from non-life, period. Either you are purposely refusing to understand, or you are genuinely unable to. Either way, it's a waste of time to explain it to you again. It's like trying to explain color to a blind person.

You sound a lot like someone who wants to reject any biological definition of life because you want to be able to excuse abortions at any point. And I will not give you a scientific justification to do so. Abortion at any time is the killing of a human being. Period.

Oh, I'm not going to explain the abortion laws to you, either, because I'm sure you already know them. I'm a scientist, not a lawyer.

Don’t you see how unscientific your answer is? If it is just a “life” continuum until death what difference does it make when you end “life”? By your definition all “life” is equivalent. That’s not very thoughtful or scientific is it?

I doubt I could say something unscientific if I wanted to. There are many things that exist in nature as a continuum on one side, and a distinct end on the other side. There is, for example, a bottom limit to temperature, but no top limit. I'll bet you see examples of the continuum of human life all the time. At what distinct point does a baby become a small child? At what distinct point does an adolescent become an adult? At what distinct point does a young adult become a middle age adult? And so on. Only when a person dies is there a distinct demarkation between them being alive and being dead.

And you're reading things I didn't say. Again. If you can quote exactly where I said that human and animal life are equivalent, feel free to do so. Otherwise, don't put words in my mouth.

93 posted on 10/05/2012 8:48:09 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson