Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does life begin at conception?

Page 5 of 6 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

04 Jul 2010, 10:58 am

live and let topic

I am an atheist, but if others want to take comfort in believing then this is their prerogative, and personal. It is an individual right, and as long as it does not become a way to bully others it can exist along with other beliefs or their lack.

I am against the politicization of any specific religion; this is a private matter, and this is how I feel about abortion, and sexual matters between consenting adults.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jul 2010, 11:54 am

sartresue wrote:
live and let topic

I am an atheist, but if others want to take comfort in believing then this is their prerogative, and personal. It is an individual right, and as long as it does not become a way to bully others it can exist along with other beliefs or their lack.

I am against the politicization of any specific religion; this is a private matter, and this is how I feel about abortion, and sexual matters between consenting adults.

Well, technically this isn't just a religious belief, but also a position that causes individuals to take political positions, and even deny rape victims the treatment that would prevent them from worrying about carrying the child of their rapist.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

04 Jul 2010, 5:09 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sartresue wrote:
live and let topic

I am an atheist, but if others want to take comfort in believing then this is their prerogative, and personal. It is an individual right, and as long as it does not become a way to bully others it can exist along with other beliefs or their lack.

I am against the politicization of any specific religion; this is a private matter, and this is how I feel about abortion, and sexual matters between consenting adults.

Well, technically this isn't just a religious belief, but also a position that causes individuals to take political positions, and even deny rape victims the treatment that would prevent them from worrying about carrying the child of their rapist.


The politics of rape topic

I see what you mean, AG. But if a woman is raped, there is an exam to discern HIV and pregnancy. This is private and the community does not know the outcome, at least here in Canada. The US seems to be more snoopy, and that may be why here in the Great White North we can be more smugly assured about rights. There was an issue many years ago with a couple (nonreligious, as far as I know) who broke up and she was pregnant with his child, and she had to fight to have the right to abort, because he made a big stink about it and took it higher than provincial court. She eventually got the case overturned and he went on to find some other woman to have his child. :roll:

Politics should be separate from other sections: religion, military, police, science, medicine and medical care, and law. I know there is the generic politicking to protest and the like and to try to change things but at least in Canada the spheres of influence are distinct.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jul 2010, 5:18 pm

sartresue wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sartresue wrote:
live and let topic

I am an atheist, but if others want to take comfort in believing then this is their prerogative, and personal. It is an individual right, and as long as it does not become a way to bully others it can exist along with other beliefs or their lack.

I am against the politicization of any specific religion; this is a private matter, and this is how I feel about abortion, and sexual matters between consenting adults.

Well, technically this isn't just a religious belief, but also a position that causes individuals to take political positions, and even deny rape victims the treatment that would prevent them from worrying about carrying the child of their rapist.


The politics of rape topic

I see what you mean, AG. But if a woman is raped, there is an exam to discern HIV and pregnancy. This is private and the community does not know the outcome, at least here in Canada. The US seems to be more snoopy, and that may be why here in the Great White North we can be more smugly assured about rights. There was an issue many years ago with a couple (nonreligious, as far as I know) who broke up and she was pregnant with his child, and she had to fight to have the right to abort, because he made a big stink about it and took it higher than provincial court. She eventually got the case overturned and he went on to find some other woman to have his child. :roll:

Politics should be separate from other sections: religion, military, police, science, medicine and medical care, and law. I know there is the generic politicking to protest and the like and to try to change things but at least in Canada the spheres of influence are distinct.


Well, I am merely talking about emergency contraceptives, which in some cases we have issues where people refuse to provide them on grounds of conscience, which can be a problem.

As for the separation of politics from religion, military, police, science, medicine, medical care, and law? Well..... it is hard for me to see that happening in most societies as in some of these areas, politics is officially in charge in some form or fashion.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

04 Jul 2010, 10:38 pm

sartresue wrote:
The politics of rape topic

I presume that for many, usually pro-choice, it is unconcibable that a woman or a young girl has to carry the child of her rapist for 9 months, for me that would be torturous, and I would advise her to get rid of that thing, yes, I said thing. Problem is that pro-lifers, for one, some seem to claim that abortions performed because of rape and incest are rare. :roll: and this idea, according to a website I found, that "The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape." which the phrase itself seems terribly absurd, as well as "a pro-life who makes the exception of rape is not really pro-life". Now, given that those views, generally, come from the christian right, no wonder there are STRIDENT atheists out there.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.html


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

04 Jul 2010, 10:39 pm

sartresue wrote:
The politics of rape topic

I presume that for many, usually pro-choice, it is unconcibable that a woman or a young girl has to carry the child of her rapist for 9 months, for me that would be torturous, and I would advise her to get rid of that thing, yes, I said thing. Problem is that pro-lifers, for one, some seem to claim that abortions performed because of rape and incest are very rare. And this idea, according to a website I found, that "The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape." which the phrase itself seems terribly absurd, as well as "people who call themselves pro-life who make an exception on rape are not really pro-life". Now, given that those views, generally, come from the christian right, no wonder there are STRIDENT atheists out there.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.html


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jul 2010, 10:58 pm

greenblue wrote:
sartresue wrote:
The politics of rape topic

I presume that for many, usually pro-choice, it is unconcibable that a woman or a young girl has to carry the child of her rapist for 9 months, for me that would be torturous, and I would advise her to get rid of that thing, yes, I said thing. Problem is that pro-lifers, for one, some seem to claim that abortions performed because of rape and incest are rare. :roll: and this idea, according to a website I found, that "The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape." which the phrase itself seems terribly absurd, as well as "a pro-life who makes the exception of rape is not really pro-life". Now, given that those views, generally, come from the christian right, no wonder there are STRIDENT atheists out there.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.html

Hell, statements like "the solution to rape is stopping rape" make me a STRIDENT student of economics! Don't people know about diminishing marginal returns???? I mean, sure I believe it is possible to stop rape, but the solution will be something like mandatory chastity belts and sex permission forms, neither of which makes sense.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

06 Jul 2010, 6:23 am

01001011 wrote:
There is no clear distinction between life and non-life. However, when a fetus starts to have the rights of a living human is another question.


That's my take on it too. "Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jul 2010, 9:21 am

TallyMan wrote:
01001011 wrote:
There is no clear distinction between life and non-life. However, when a fetus starts to have the rights of a living human is another question.


That's my take on it too. "Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


A fetus consists of reproducing cells. One of the indications of life (being living matter) is reproduction of parts. A fetus is all alive until it stops replicating its parts and maintaining its thermodynamic state far from equilibrium.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

06 Jul 2010, 10:45 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
b9 wrote:
i have heard many times that "life begins at 40".
so i do not see any moral dilemma in a termination before that age.


I am 84 and anticipating a full life as soon as it starts.I have no indication as to when that might be but local conditions are obvious it's not here.



Were you an atheist at the age of 4?

ruveyn


Everyone is an atheist at birth.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

06 Jul 2010, 11:12 am

TallyMan wrote:
"Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


i define "life" as a deliberate movement (without necessitating consciousness) performed by a self contained system in order to maintain it's state of existence.

"life" is a process where energy is deliberately drawn into itself by whatever mechanism in order to perpetuate it's own existence.
deliberation does not require internal consciousness.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Jul 2010, 11:22 am

b9 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
"Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


i define "life" as a deliberate movement (without necessitating consciousness) performed by a self contained system in order to maintain it's state of existence.

"life" is a process where energy is deliberately drawn into itself by whatever mechanism in order to perpetuate it's own existence.
deliberation does not require internal consciousness.


Obviously then, a satellite with solar panels is alive.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

06 Jul 2010, 11:50 am

Sand wrote:
b9 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
"Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


i define "life" as a deliberate movement (without necessitating consciousness) performed by a self contained system in order to maintain it's state of existence.

"life" is a process where energy is deliberately drawn into itself by whatever mechanism in order to perpetuate it's own existence.
deliberation does not require internal consciousness.


Obviously then, a satellite with solar panels is alive.


a satellite with solar panels will remain a satellite with solar panels regardless of whether it absorbs energy.

and if a satellite with solar panels absorbs energy, it is by external design and not by it's own deliberation.

a satellite who's solar panel is knocked out of alignment to the suns rays makes no attempt to realign itself unless externally instructed.

moreover, a solar panel that absorbs energy is not absorbing it for it's own perpetuation, but it is absorbing it for the facilitation of whatever the modules within the satellite require that is an externally designed function.

deliberation is not something that requires consciousness.

life "strives" no matter how simply.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Jul 2010, 12:17 pm

b9 wrote:
Sand wrote:
b9 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
"Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


i define "life" as a deliberate movement (without necessitating consciousness) performed by a self contained system in order to maintain it's state of existence.

"life" is a process where energy is deliberately drawn into itself by whatever mechanism in order to perpetuate it's own existence.
deliberation does not require internal consciousness.


Obviously then, a satellite with solar panels is alive.


a satellite with solar panels will remain a satellite with solar panels regardless of whether it absorbs energy.

and if a satellite with solar panels absorbs energy, it is by external design and not by it's own deliberation.

a satellite who's solar panel is knocked out of alignment to the suns rays makes no attempt to realign itself unless externally instructed.

moreover, a solar panel that absorbs energy is not absorbing it for it's own perpetuation, but it is absorbing it for the facilitation of whatever the modules within the satellite require that is an externally designed function.

deliberation is not something that requires consciousness.

life "strives" no matter how simply.


In order to survive evolution has seen to it that living things have genetically structured systems to adjust to preserve its functioning systems. No deliberation is required for cooling systems, blood circulation, etc. Satellites have been designed to be responsive in the same manner. By your definition, they are alive.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jul 2010, 12:32 pm

Sand wrote:

In order to survive evolution has seen to it that living things have genetically structured systems to adjust to preserve its functioning systems. No deliberation is required for cooling systems, blood circulation, etc. Satellites have been designed to be responsive in the same manner. By your definition, they are alive.


Two things characterize living things:

1. They replicate
2. They have built in homeostatic controls (basically negative feedback loops) to maintain their dynamic state far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. That is why warm-bloods like us maintain temperature (as long as we have fuel) and corpses cool off to the ambient temperature of the surroundings.

By that definition it is possible for for humans to construct living things from non-living matter. This has not yet happened but there is no inherent violation of physical laws for such a thing to happen.


In fact, if you grant what Craige Venter and has team has recently made is living, then artificial life has been created.

ruveyn



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

06 Jul 2010, 12:45 pm

Sand wrote:
b9 wrote:
Sand wrote:
b9 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
"Life" is an abstraction. It is a human definition rather than a clearly defined state of organisation of matter. Thus "life" could be defined as any of the points mentioned by other posters. It is arbitrary.


i define "life" as a deliberate movement (without necessitating consciousness) performed by a self contained system in order to maintain it's state of existence.

"life" is a process where energy is deliberately drawn into itself by whatever mechanism in order to perpetuate it's own existence.
deliberation does not require internal consciousness.


Obviously then, a satellite with solar panels is alive.


a satellite with solar panels will remain a satellite with solar panels regardless of whether it absorbs energy.

and if a satellite with solar panels absorbs energy, it is by external design and not by it's own deliberation.

a satellite who's solar panel is knocked out of alignment to the suns rays makes no attempt to realign itself unless externally instructed.

moreover, a solar panel that absorbs energy is not absorbing it for it's own perpetuation, but it is absorbing it for the facilitation of whatever the modules within the satellite require that is an externally designed function.

deliberation is not something that requires consciousness.

life "strives" no matter how simply.


In order to survive(,) evolution has seen to it that living things have genetically structured systems to adjust to preserve its (their) functioning systems. No deliberation is required for cooling systems, blood circulation, etc.


i agree. the internal mechanisms of organisms are genetically determined and not able to be altered.
but i was talking about the absorption of energy from the outside world that is required for sustenance (sustaining/preserving) of the internal systems being a "deliberation".
what the energy is used for is a foretold preset, and the act of deliberately accessing energy is the thrust of life.
as a flower will turn it's face to the sun to suckle the energy of sunlight...as the tendril of a passionfruit vine will find a nearby branch to obtain support (with no eyes or mind)....as the roots of a seedling will break through concrete to get to the dirt where it can draw sustenance from, so is life a deliberation of motive action in order to sustain that which it is, but has no control over the manifestation of.

Sand wrote:
Satellites have been designed to be responsive in the same manner. By your definition, they are alive.

they have no self inspired urge to correct their misalignment from sources of energy.

if the humans that designed and built them all are dead, then the sattelite that goes awry will remain awry.

life is internally urgent and not a remotely controlled phenomena.

i am not very interested in continuing this debate sand.

you can consider yourself the winner because i have no place in my messy life for trophies.