Snoopy wrote: Helwi wrote:
Wow, I leave for a fiew days and it's already another page.
sorry I didn't answered you sooner Snoopy, but I'm very busy this year, so I can't take too much time tipping here.
No problem. I haven’t exactly been very prompt in my responses either.
But: lol, me? A tree-hugger? Where d' you get that idea?
Don't be so manicheist, just because I don't share your view on some points does not means I am necessarily in the same category as The_African. Like the books says: there is no "black "and "white", only shades of grays (or colors, if you're not daltonnian
Well, I was mostly referring to The_African.
Snoopy wrote:Well, what’s wrong with evolution in theory? Boy… that’s a hard one to put in a nutshell, as we say. But, let me try. The code of life, the instruction manual, if you will, for building any living thing, from the tiniest bacterium to a human being, is called DNA. Now, this DNA is by far the most efficient method of storing information known to man. The DNA found in one single cell is equivalent to about .75 GB of information. Imagine how small we could make memory cards if we knew how to utilize that technology! Anyway, DNA contains very complicated instructions for building a living being, such as a human. It is simply absurd to believe that this DNA, as well as the incredibly well designed organisms we see all around us, appeared simply by random chance. It would be like looking at Mount Rushmore, and supposing that that was merely the work of random sand storms, or looking at Stonehenge, as postulating that the stones there simply happened to fall into that order due to an earthquake. Only it is so much more absurd, because the information found in DNA is orders and orders of magnitude more complex than either of those examples.
wow, I'm asking for your evidences agaisnt evolution, and I get a biology lesson.
Alright, maybe I wasn't very clear, I am indeed no scientist, (and I'm going to assume that you aren't either, considering your age) but that does not mean I never learnt about deoxyribonucleic acid, genes and such. Sorry for sounding so ignorant.
Though, I'm not sure if you tried to argue against the Theory of Evolution or the Abiogenesis Theory, Because, here, you're not refuting the Evolution, you're trying to disproove that life is a product of random chance, but the truth is that wether or not you're right, (and I have no reason to think you are right for the moment), it would still not disprove the evolution.
You're stating that because of the complexity of DNA, it would be absurd to think that it could only come by random chance. Reasonning by the absurd? Alright, but would you agree with me if I say that it would be absurd to think that the Earth emerged from Chaos like the Greeks believed? Or if I say that it would be absurd to believe that the universe and all its matter was created by magic by some omnipotent being that never shows up? See? It works as well as yours, and I can add that I find it absurd because it would contradict with Lavoisier's law of conservation of matter (Which you probably know already of) that state that "nothing can be lost, nothing can be created, everything is in constant change"(which is the reason why every chemical equation has to be adjusted).
And that's where the difference is, I'm adding a reliable reason to my reasoning. You have not for now (considering the univsers is considerably huge, a "random chance" still have some ratio).
You are taking the Mt Rushmore and Stonehenge as exemples of human designs to try to explain that you can't justify the apparition of life other than with some intelligent intervention. Letting out the fact that I find those examples inappropriate, because they're unliving material, did the humans who made them created the matters those two monuments are made of out of nowhere?
Well, I'm actualy studying in Art domain, therefore, I know a bit about artistic creation and design, and If there is something that I'm sure of, it is that I cannot make my materials pop out of nowhere (unfortunately)
Also, have you ever seen a building or a Stonehenge sprout off on its own?
because, that's how life is going: on its own, you can't really compare it to those human built materials.
Anyway, Abiogenesis was not what I was talking about. And though I'm happy you share your fascination for life with me, I disagree somewhat when you say that our organism is so "incredibly well designed". I mean, sure, it's quite amasing, but it has a lot of flaws too: there are about one child out of 160 who is born with autistic troubles, (and that's
just the autists) lots of people have to wear glasses, and the abortion is spontaneous in one case out of five. That is quite some troubles if you're asking me.
In order to disprove Evolution, you are going to have to refute the validity of the fossil records, the scientific datation, the already observed speciations and a bunch of other things.
Also, you're going to have to exlpain why whales posess a useless pelvis, why some human babies can have tails, what was the Archéoptéryx, why some snakes have remaining bumps of limb, why the Proteus, a cave batracian, start developing eyes for a time as an embryo which are later resorbed, why I am lacking three adult teeth which have never grown, even though my parents do not lack any of these.
If you can come with satisfying, reasonnable answers to these, and, of course, manage to disprove all the scientific searches which gives the Theory its importance, it would be a pleasure for me to listen to you.
Well, we’re already covering this ground over in the evolution thread, so I’m not going to respond to this portion point by point. Rather, I’ll just hit a few of the highlights.
First of all, in order to explain life on earth using evolution, you must first explain how life got here. Now, unless you’re willing to say that the very first cell was actually created by an intelligent agent, and then evolution took over from there, then you must rely on the theory of Abiogenesis to explain where life came from. So you see, without Abiogenesis, you have no foundation to stand on.
Also, I’m not arguing that a god created all matter from absolute nothingness. In fact, I’m not arguing for the existence of a god at all. All I’m saying is that life on earth had to be designed by some intelligent agent. It could have been a god; it could have been the aliens. Frankly, that’s not what this thread is about.
Any other points that you would like me to answer, please bring up in the evolution thread and I will be glad to do so.
Snoopy wrote:So, it’s dependency that determines whether or not someone is a human, with all the rights of a human? Because in that case, you must also conclude that those on heart/lung machines are not human. After all, if the patient were removed from the heart/lung machine, they would die. Does that mean that they are not really human beings and that its okay to kill them if their caretaker doesn’t feel like paying the medical bills?
A human witn only one lung lacking would live, though
. But it's not like those patients never had these fully formed before. The fetuses don't have them yet
So what? If you follow that line of reasoning, you could say that it isn’t wrong to kill a male child under the age of 20, since all his organs are still not fully developed. Do you really want to say that it’s okay to murder a partially developed human? Because if so, then that means it should also be okay to kill any child who is not fully developed. And what about people with genetic disorders, who may never
develop certain organs? Is it okay to kill them?
Snoopy wrote:And so now we come full circle, to the question of whether or not animals are sentient and deserve to be treated with the same rights as humans. Since I believe they do not deserve the same rights, I at least am consistent with myself. Whereas people like The_African who believe that sentience is the qualification for whether or not an animal deserves the same rights as humans, gives no thought to the unborn baby who we know is sentient, at least as much as we know any other human is sentient. And no, an unborn baby’s innocence is not hard to determine. They are no more or less innocent than a murder victim.
Actualy, I was only talking about "innocence", not sentiencies. The lices have no malice against you when they suck your blood, in that regard, they're "innocent"
. Innocence is a philosophical question, hence, the reason why it is so tricky.
Oh, I don’t think innocence is that tricky at all. See, I think that the lice I kill when I wash my hair are innocent, the cows that are slaughtered every day are innocent, and the plants I kill when I use Weed and Feed
are innocent. And yet I can kill them with a perfectly clean conscience. Why? Well, it’s because I believe these creatures are not sentient, and therefore are not deserving of the same rights as a human being. However, we know
that the fetus inside the womb is sentient as well as innocent, so it is wrong
to kill it.
Snoopy wrote:Like I said, circumstantial evidence can be enough to be sure, given that it has a proper degree of certainty.
Uh, somehow, I feel some contradictions with your post before. If it cannot be a sure source in science, then, there are obviously a lot of doubts in justice too. Didn't you quote one exemple of those before?
No, of course this is not a contradiction. As I’ve said time and time again, it depends on the degree of certainty of the evidence in question.
Snoopy wrote:This is a problem of actuation, not of principle. True, there have probably been many, many executions of innocent people for crimes they did not commit. That does not mean the principle, (if someone takes a human life, they deserve death), is flawed, it only means that those carrying it out are not doing it right. This is a subtle but very important distinction.
I wonder, if you would have the same mentality, were you sentenced for a crime you didn't commit (I'm going to bet on yes
You make a good point; the innocent man judged guilty who is being strapped to the electric chair probably does not share my views. And if I were in that situation, I would probably be protesting pretty loudly too. And to be sure, we should always be looking for new ways to make sure our justice system is reliable. But that still does not negate the principle.
Helwi wrote:By "principle", you mean the "Talion" law? "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? Well, sure, it is a begining of law, I grant you that. Like in a lot of countries in the world: If you steal, your hand is cut, if you murder, you have to die, if you commit adultery, you have to die... indeed, this principle is so right that it is still applied a lot... or maybe it isn't so right, as the law is actualy doing what it forbids, quite the contradiction.
You just don’t get it, do you? Executing the murderer is not the same thing as killing the murder victim. Why? Well, what is the definition of “murder”?
Wikipedia wrote: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.
But even deeper than that, murder is the killing of an innocent person, who does not deserve to die. Murder victims, as well as fetuses, are innocent. Murderers are not. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it.
Helwi wrote:Though, I'll have to ask how exactly you can manage to remake the system be absolutely certain that those who are judged guilty commited those crime, as you seem to be so sure you know how to do.
That isn’t the problem in question. This is a question of principle, not actuation.
Snoopy wrote:I’m saying that I’m not sure I know the right answer. In one way, the Animorphs were sure to be found out and infested if David were allowed to live, but in another way, David did not technically commit a capital offense. I don’t really know what the right answer is on that one.
Killing David was only my personal opinion at the time, that doesn’t mean I’m giving myself the right to decide whether or not it’s better for a person to be dead or alive. And you’re right, it’s only your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that if a person has never done something wrong, they deserve a chance to at least be born.
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, there are just those that allow you to survive and those that don't. Though you said you were for death penality, therefore, you do
give yourself the right to decide if it's better for a person to be dead or alive.
You just revealed a lot about your worldview there, and I’m very glad you did. So, you truly believe that there was no “right” or “wrong” answer? Do you mean to imply that all morality is relative? And deeper still, is there ever
a “right” or “wrong” answer? These are crucial questions that I hope you will think about and answer carefully.
Helwi wrote:What I think is that wether a fetuses become human or not, it is already a factor of chance, the woman it is develloping in is also one of the factor; if the woman wanted it, then good for it, if not, it was unlucky for it.
Well then, could not the same be said of victims of the holocaust? You know, religion was one factor, Hitler was another; if Hitler felt like not killing that particular person, then good for it, if not, then, “oh well”?
Helwi wrote: Snoopy wrote:
Guns are a right given to us in the United States Constitution. Now, you may say that making guns legal will cause more deaths, and that may or may not be true. (I’m not going to go into gun control here, although you can probably guess my views on the subject
. ) But still, making guns legal is not the same as making murder legal. It would be like saying we should make alcohol illegal, since that would help prevent drunk driving violations.
Wether or not guns are causing more deaths, I'm pretty sure it was already demonstrated that it does, but you'better check it out yourself.
Actually, I have checked it out for myself, and the findings are very shocking. But just let me point out that anywhere that guns are illegal, the only people who will have guns are, by default, criminals? Do you really want to force law-abiding citizens to abide by that huge disadvantage?
Helwi wrote:Interesting how you can compare a killing machine with a drink.
A gun is not a “killing machine” any more than a car, a shovel, a stick of dynamite, or a pool of water. All of those things are capable of killing,
but does that make them “killing machines”? Of course not. Guns
do not kill people. The person who pulls the trigger is the one doing the killing, not the guns.
Helwi wrote:On a side note, it's interesting how you nickname pro-choices "pro-death" when you willingly declare that you support some human killings.
How much clearer do I need to make it? Murderers are guilty. They deserve to die! Murder victims are innocent. They do not deserve to die. And unless you are going to argue from the position of total moral relativism, (which it would be an absolute pleasure
to refute, I assure you), than you cannot really contradict this without presenting some moral philosophy of your own.
Snoopy wrote:Ah… here’s where we differ! You see, I still believe the words of the Declaration of Independence, the founding document and charter of the United States of America. It says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Emphasis added.)
You see the subtle, but oh so important difference? The Declaration of Independence says nothing about being born or not, but rather it says that all men are created equal. What about the unborn baby? Does the unborn baby have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Darn, you got me there, I completely forgot about your unique constitution. That explains some things.
On a side note, it is quite interesting, the way your country is following a capitalist ideology while being theologicaly affiliated. True capitalism isn't supporting any belief, did you know that?
Actually, true capitalism is an economic system. It can be affiliated with God, Buddha, or the boogey-man for all I care. True capitalism can support any belief it likes. And our “unique constitution” (it’s the Declaration of Independence actually, but I’ll let it slide), is one of the reasons America is the greatest, most powerful country on earth.
Helwi wrote:Well, here is the part I really hate, but you kind of put the bases on the first part of your post, so I'm going to took it again.
In order to persuade me that life was created, you used Stonehenge and Mt Rushemore as examples of intelligent design, let's take those two and compare to the fetuses and humans, as you seem keen of comparing living with non-living.
Before the Mt Rushmore was carved, was it already a work of the human art? And as it was carved, was it one already? Was Stonehenge more than rocks before men laid their hands on those? And was it already Stonehenge as it was in construction? Is a mall already a mall before it is finished? Or can it be stopped and be something else like aa abbandonned construction site?
This is why is dislike the word "creation" when applying to living, it is like reducing something to an object or work of art.
Of course not. And just as the rocks that compose Stonehenge are nothing more than rocks before they are put together, so the proteins that form the baby are nothing more than proteins until they come together to form the baby’s organs. But once again, if you’re going to argue from the level of development platform, than you must be prepared to support the killing of any human being who is not fully developed, and that includes and child under the age of 20.
Snoopy wrote:Just because a baby is dependent does not mean that it does not have rights. There are hundreds of pre-maturely born babies who, the moment they’re born, must be placed in intensive care. Do these babies count as viable? They’re not really capable of surviving outside of the mother’s womb any more than an unborn baby. Does that mean it’s okay to kill them?
If they are not viable, then you don't even have to kill them, you know?
I cannot really believe that you are not this ignorant. What do you think abortion is? It is the killing of a baby while it is still in the mother’s womb. And in many cases, the baby still comes out of the womb alive
. In fact, many abortion attempts fail, and the babies are left out to die. And it can take eight hours or more for theses abortion surviving “non-viable” babies, that “don’t really need to be killed” to die.
Helwi wrote:Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not necessarily for saving every children that are born. Pre-matured can have a lot of problems linked to their conditions, they can have mental problems which could ruin their lives, but the doctors are saving everyone, even thoses that would not have survived, that's what they do, even if it means giving the family a mentally disabled child to take care of. I heard of a man who was born with both autism and trisomy. The doctor said it was a science miracle, well, I doubt you would qualify this poor man as a "miraclous". He died in his twenties.
I must tell you, I am shocked and astonished that someone as “humane” as you is saying this. Do you have any idea what you are saying? I have known countless
mentally and physically disabled children who love their lives, and who’s families love them deeply. Do you really believe it would be right to let these children die as babies? And if you are going to say that we should kill babies that are not quite as smart as other babies, then where do you stop? You could carry that argument further and say that we kill anyone who is not above a certain IQ. Are you saying we should let human beings die just because they are not smart enough?
Snoopy wrote: "True, there are a lot of people wanting to be parent, and a lot of orphans too.
Not too long ago, I heard of a 19 year old girl who was kicked out of the orphan she lived in when she reached adultehood and was forced to live as a hobo. Well, apparently, the wannabe parents did not want her. What make you think it is so easy? "
Sure, there are some cases of unwanted children, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t many more cases of parents desperately wanting children, and jumping through all sorts of hoops to become parents.
It's a numb argument, if there are already children in the streets when abortion is legalised, there wont be less if it's forbidden.
And like I said, those children are already often social cases and it's very hard for them.
So we’re going to kill babies because they are unwanted? So much for “humane”.
Snoopy wrote: The unborn baby is not a part of the women’s body; it is a human being that happens to still need the support of the mother’s body, just as an injured person is a human being, rather than a part of the heart/lung machine he may be on.
It has yet to be a human being, it is a potential
human being like a lot of other things are.
And yet it is sentient, has hands, feet, toes, eyes, ears, a heart and lungs just like you and me, and after being aborted often survives for hours, and you still say it is okay to kill it?
Snoopy wrote:I look in the mirror every day and ask myself if I know what I believe to be true. And every time, I have not the slightest doubt that a baby, born or unborn, is a human being and deserves to be treated like one.
And yet, you can still demand death penality to other human being, and that is one truth. And those ones are truly, without a doubt, humans.
For about the third time in this post, one is innocent, the other is guilty. ‘Nuff said.
Snoopy wrote:Let me just say that I do not really fault all the women who have abortions. I know that folks like the people at Planned Parenthood are very good at making it sound like a perfectly moral thing to do. I don’t really blame the women who may not know any better, I blame the people who are well informed, and yet perform abortions.
You shouldn't worry about well-informed people, they're those who take the contraceptive pills the first. It's not a fun thing to do, do you really think a woman would take the risk to have to do one for her own pleasure?
No, but she certainly would risk having one for her own convenience.
Snoopy wrote:Rape is a very, very serious crime. The man who raped this girl deserves imprisonment, in my opinion. And, if the girl’s life was at stake due to the forced pregnancy, that is the one instance where an abortion might be justified.
Well, that's something new I heard from you. I wonder why you did not even comment on that girl in the message where I told her story instead of blatantly judge her. Make me wonder if you read it...
Sorry… I did
read it, but a response just seemed to fit better in this last post.
Snoopy wrote:A women has a right not to get pregnant, and if she does get pregnant, she can always put the baby up for adoption. Abandonment and abortion are not the only two options.
And, using this argument, you could also say that the parent of a young child has the right to decide whether or not to feed the child. After all, it’s the parent’s food. Should the parent be allowed to have the child killed, simply because he or she cannot afford or does not want to provide the child with food?
A woman has the right to dispose of her body and we have nothing to say against that. Unless we're extremist.
As for the second part, the answer is in the Declaration of Human's Rights.
The baby is not
her own body. It is a human who happens to be dependent on her. If you say that the baby is really a part of the woman’s body, than that means that the woman has two heads, four hands, and four feet! Is this really the line of reasoning you want to follow? If the baby is a boy, that means the woman has a penis. How much further do you want to go down this trail of absurd reasoning?