.
Posted on 01/11/2005 12:29:05 PM PST by beavus
I agree that it is incoherent. One has to take liberties with ambiguity to make it coherent.
However, the life cycle is continuous from parents through children. People do not POOF into existence as so many pro-lifers passionately claim.
Deconstructionist clap trap. I fail to see the fallacy you are trying to manufacture. Are you trying to say that just because an event is not fully understood, or cannot be seen, that it does not occur? That's toddler logic. My son (age three) is still pretty well convinced that if he can't see me, I can't see him. Your argument makes similar assumptions.
Irreducible complexity does not negate causality. For a review of the causal factors surrounding conception, see biology 101.
Your argument about continua fails as well. Pursue time and space down to the smallest observable scales, and reality is essentially discontinuous.
Because that is the time when a totally unique DNA pattern comes into existence - it is a magical poof - wow, just think of whats happens. The blueprint has just been drawn for a totally unique (except for multiples, twins, triples, & so on) individual.
For any species to continue, it is to the advantage of all the members when conception and birth occur. Without it, the continuum of life stops.
Do you think that that insistence has any detrimental effect?
The whole issue is, was, and always will be emotional, so , no, I don't think that belief in the "Magical Poof", as you will, is necessarily bad. Again, it is the moment that a new, unique individual is created.
In viewing the whole abortion issue, I am always amazed that more weight is always given to the life of the mother. See, in looking at life as a continuation of a species, how can the mother's life be more important then that of her child. In fact, the child may very well contribute much more to the continuation of the species. So, each life, that of the mother wishing to terminate the life of her child, and that of the child - or potential child, should be weighed equally.
In this case, there is no way to justify the termination of a species member and still expect the species/life continuum to continue. Whether or not one believes in God, just the basic survival instinct should prevent abortions. That's why I can't understand the pro-choice crowd. I do truly believe that the pro-choice group is either deeply deluded or deeply suicidal.
Post 73: Point made.
The life it creates becomes separate from it's two original parts.
No, that is not what I'm trying to say. What makes you think that?
That's toddler logic. My son (age three) is still pretty well convinced that if he can't see me, I can't see him. Your argument makes similar assumptions.
I don't see it. How so?
Irreducible complexity does not negate causality.
True.
For a review of the causal factors surrounding conception, see biology 101.
Been there, many times.
Your argument about continua fails as well. Pursue time and space down to the smallest observable scales, and reality is essentially discontinuous.
Ah! Very good! But consider at what level you have to go to. At that level, almost everything looks the same, and the continuum still exists, because near events look identical and far events look different.
I'm not speaking of *THE* continuum such as used in set theory and abbreviated with aleph_1. I'm speak of a concept in which proximate elements are not significantly different but distant ones are decidedly different. It is precisely this property (regardless of what you want to call it, if you don't like "continuum") that describes the process of conception.
The example classically used for the fallacy expressed by many pro-lifers is that of a beard. As you remove discrete whiskers from a beard, at what point does it stop being a beard? The answer is that there is no such point. The fallacy is in thinking either that there MUST be such a point or that since there is no such point, a beard and a whisker must be the same thing!
If you read what some of the poofists post here, you will see that this is precisely the fallacy they commit.
You make a good point which is why for years I always included the phrase "above quantum scales". However, that was an unnecessary complication to a simple idea, and the issue of reality at the quantum scale is perhaps a bit more complicated than just being described as discrete.
That contradicts not only general physical observations, but our understanding of chemical processes in general, and the formation of DNA in particular. It is not a magical poof, but rather a complex set of many seemingly insignficant chemical events occuring in series and in parallel.
- wow, just think of whats happens. The blueprint has just been drawn for a totally unique (except for multiples, twins, triples, & so on) individual.
Yes, it is very interesting.
For any species to continue, it is to the advantage of all the members when conception and birth occur. Without it, the continuum of life stops.
Now you speak of the continuum of life! I'm confused! Do you think it is a continuum, or do you think the continuum is broken by meaningful discontinuities (like your view of DNA formation)?
The whole issue is, was, and always will be emotional, so , no, I don't think that belief in the "Magical Poof", as you will, is necessarily bad. Again, it is the moment that a new, unique individual is created.
But no such moment exists. I would think that professing such as factually false belief would hamper persuasion.
In viewing the whole abortion issue, I am always amazed that more weight is always given to the life of the mother. See, in looking at life as a continuation of a species, how can the mother's life be more important then that of her child.
. That importance is a question of values, and it would seem that some people do value the mother's life (or her mere convienience) over the life of the fetus.
Sure, as long as you are aware that the whole process is a continuous one, with no meaningful specific time point.
Right on.
You don't mind if I send your post to my Pro-Life group?
Just using your terminology - yes, it is a complex biochemical process. The whole process of life from pre-conception to birth is an amazingly complex process.
Now you speak of the continuum of life! I'm confused! Do you think it is a continuum, or do you think the continuum is broken by meaningful discontinuities (like your view of DNA formation)?
Why do you believe the process of a new DNA combination is a discontinuity??
But no such moment exists. I would think that professing such as factually false belief would hamper persuasion.
So, you're saying that the creation of a new DNA patterns is not the moment when a new member of the species comes into being? If that is so, when does the creation of the new species member occur?
Yes, and no one ever wins the Boston Marathon because before they can finish the race, they need to get to the halfway point, and before they can get to the halfway point they have to reach the halfway point of the halfway point and so on ad infinitum until you reason yourself into a standstill.
You're not talking biology. You're not even talking good philosophy.
You, my lad, have descended into the ignominous depths of sophistry, where there is no reasoning, and thus no valid argument.
My arrows will go faster than your turtle any day.
Yes, it is. The parts the create the new whole are living. So there is no "not living" that creates life. Life creates more life.
I had not thought of it in those terms. Thanks
.
First, let's say that you are 30 years old. You did not exist 31 years ago. You did exist 29 years ago. So, between 31 years ago and 29 years ago, something that did not exist (i.e. you) came into existence.
Second, something either exists, or it does not exists. It is impossible for something to exist partially.
Therefore, from these two premises it follows that at some point [i.e. instant] in time, you came into existence. It might be hard for you to determine that point, but epistemology does not determine ontology.
-A8
Your claim assumes that ontological changes per se are observable by scientific instruments and/or quantitative means. That assumption, however, is not true, as Aristotle showed. Physics, chemistry and biology do not determine ontology. Positivism and scientism are false philosophies. A helpful intro to philosophy book is An Introduction to Philosophy by Maritain.
-A8
Philosophy or metaphysics are bot physiology, and never the "twain shall meet."
NOT physiology, that is.
I would have to disagree with you. You seem hung up on the when -as if defining exactly the 'when' must be determined before attempting to intelligently act upon the matter. Simply put, we know the what -before the sperm there is no new life -after the sperm there is. We can measure and observe the before and after quite easily -the answer is obvious to all but those in denial...
It is absurd to argue that conception is not an event with a clear beginning. There is no such thing as a little pregnant, or sort of pregnant. Using the example of the plucked hairs, conception is more a case where X hairs are plucked, causing the rest to fall out by themselves.
To put this nicely, you've constructed a false argument with the objective of creating controversy.
To put it bluntly, you're trolling.
She was fine. Luckily the cord was long enough that there was plenty of slack.
She's always been very active, before birth and since. :)
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.