If you thought the Planned Parenthood scandal couldn't get worse - it just did.

[lilpixieofterror]

So you don't know what the genetic code is either.

Yep because it is so hard to search the internet and lift a definition from wiki and claim you're so smart because you can do that (yep, I know that the first sentence in your definition is word for word exact from the wiki article). Do you seriously think we're easily impressed by your abilities to throw up answers onto a computer screen? I hate to burst your fantasy bubble, but I learned how to throw up definitions onto a sheet of paper or computer screen years ago. I think you're trying to nit pick because you can't refute the argument that has been made, so you're trying to change up the topic to make yourself feel smarter; without actually being smarter. You and Jorge so are sounding more and more alike.

[lilpixieofterror]

I know who wrote the genetic code. Very smart...

Funny how the first sentence, of his definition, is lifted straight from the wiki article that he seems to think the rest of us are too stupid to go and find for ourselves. I wonder if he is as easily impressed by people's abilities to quickly google definitions of words and phrases, like he seems to think the rest of us should be. I guess when you have a low opinion of people who dare to disagree with you, underestimating their intelligence and abilities is one way to make you feel better about your lack of arguments.

[lilpixieofterror]

It seems to me that a lot of people who are anti-abortion have simply seen some sort of (doctored) video of an abortion been performed and had a reaction of emotional disgust along the lines of "OMG, that looks awful!" and so are now anti-abortion. (Likewise if we showed them some graphic footage of an animal being slaughtered, they'd probably all become instant vegetarians.)

Subsequently upon encountering people who aren't anti-abortion, they are forced to try to justify their position with some sort of appeal to reason or rationality. They try to construct a moral code that would show why abortion must be totally immoral.

But this moral code is derived from their view that abortion is immoral, not the cause of that view. They struggle to construct a coherent moral code, because their motivation for being anti-abortion in the first place was an emotional one, not a rational one. The kinds of moral code they subsequently come up with end up looking half-baked and arbitrary to anyone who ever spent five minutes thinking about morality. And when asked really basic questions about their arbitrary moral code, they simply can't answer them.

Yep, all of your opponents just became pro life a few months ago. In reality, some of us have been pro life for years (I was one as a teen). Of course, among these reasons is due to the fact that if pro choicers had their way, I'd be dead today. While that is somewhat of an emotional reason, it is one based in logic because that makes me realize how horrible your ideology really is because it results in babies being killed on the alter of convenience, who were denied the basic right of life. Guess I was just lucky that my parents were not pro baby killers, as you are, eh? Anyway, I guess when you can't refute what your opponents say; accusing them of things that you can't prove and that are factually incorrect is all you have left.

[tabibito]

WRONG.

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. It is the correspondence between nucleotide triplets and amino-acids. Humans have two slightly different ones, one for nuclear DNA and one for mitochondrial DNA. Both are shared with penguins and porcupines, among others.

You are wrong. Will you admit that, dig deeper, or run away?

"Information becomes protein" - First hint that Roy hasn't studied genetics, and that there might be a problem with the Wikipedia article.

I have been wholly unable to find any reference to porcupines - so I checked for hedgehogs: a matching occurrence of just one single set of three genes - taking their names from their appearance - and one of them (SHH) being given the name of "the Sonic Hedgehog" gene. ... second hint (perhaps - it might be that I'm just not asking the right questions.)

Checking for penguins: one entire strand matches one of the strands in penguins. ... third hint - subject to the same codicil.

Really - Who'd have thought? You're saying that the genetic code = the set of rules by which living cells translate rna and dna information into proteins?

Rewording the Wikipedia entry so as to be sure there was no mistake - Roy again affirms that information becomes protein. Fourth hint.

I've studied genetics. You obviously haven't, even superficially, or you'd know that "genetic code" not only has a specific technical meaning at odds with how it was used here, but that technical meaning is so common in genetics that misusing it is like confusing Jesus with Judas.

Yep, all of your opponents just became pro life a few months ago. In reality, some of us have been pro life for years (I was one as a teen). Of course, among these reasons is due to the fact that if pro choicers had their way, I'd be dead today. While that is somewhat of an emotional reason, it is one based in logic because that makes me realize how horrible your ideology really is because it results in babies being killed on the alter of convenience, who were denied the basic right of life. Guess I was just lucky that my parents were not pro baby killers, as you are, eh? Anyway, I guess when you can't refute what your opponents say; accusing them of things that you can't prove and that are factually incorrect is all you have left.

All the time that I spent in the late '70s and early '80s trying to come to grips with the debate, and finally settling on the hard science of - well, genetics shows that the foetus is human and developing: ergo, a living human being.
I only imagined that I did all of that: how strange. Tis a good thing that Roy informed us of my error, otherwise I'd have never known.

[Starlight]

I don't see a difference between capability and capacity.

Something actually existing is different to the possibility of it existing some time in the future. It's that simple.

If someone currently has an IQ of 120, that's quite different from the possibility existing that they might gain an IQ of 120 sometime in the distant future.

[Starlight]

So you are being ableist then? You judge a human fetus as irrelevant due to ableist views. It can't do certain arbitrary tasks that you deem worthy and so you evaluate the human fetus less because as such

The word 'ableist' has an accepted different meaning.

My point firstly was that you are using this ability to determine that the life of a human fetus is worth less than that of a human adult which is completely arbitrary.

Any paradigm of morality needs to set out what types of being are or aren't morally relevant (and why). For example, you and I both take the view that our actions towards a rock have no moral relevance. We can cut a rock to pieces and that's neither moral nor immoral, because a rock does not have moral status.

Whereas we both agree that a living adult human does have moral status. So an important question then becomes: What is it that makes things morally relevant? What is it that makes an adult human morally relevant and a rock not? And how can we decide on the various things in-between (eg plants, animals, fetuses etc)?

The answer that is almost universally given by moral philosophers is cognitive capabilities. In particular, possession of the attributes of consciousness, intention, and memory, are generally regarded as particularly important. Rocks do not posses these, and hence are morally irrelevant, while adult humans posses them and hence are morally relevant. Animals and developing fetuses occupy a middle-ground and are thus generally regarded as having some moral relevance, but a diminished amount.

An alternative, somewhat arbitrary way to answer this question would be with reference to the bible and simply to point to the Bible's statement that God made humans "in the image of God". That becomes kind of vague about what exactly it is about humans that makes them morally relevant, and doesn't give a framework for understanding the extent of the moral relevance of animals or aliens, and it doesn't help us determine at what stage of development a human fetus might reach full moral status.

If you think animals have moral relevance to humans you would agree that a female spider shouldn't eat her mate or that a human female should be able to eat her mate. Obviously animals do not hold to moral relevancy of humans.

Just because animals sometimes don't act morally toward one another, that doesn't show whether we are justified in not acting morally toward them.

And what causes this consciousness?

Nobody knows.

Depends what you mean by 'soul'.

I mean a soul.

By 'soul' you mean 'soul'...?

Of course consciousness from an atheistic view is just the result of electrical impulses in the brain.

I told you I'm not a materialist. Stop trying to pretend atheists have the views you keep trying to attribute to us.

what I said was that you arbitrary use it as an excuse to kill the unborn

I don't know anyone who's had an abortion. I'm certainly not killing any unborn, and so I don't need an 'excuse' for it. I have almost zero interest in the topic of abortion other than as a thought-experiment in moral philosophy which is a subject that interests me. So I'm not making up 'excuses', I'm just saying what seems to be the logical consequences of standard moral views (and obviously most people agree with me, since most people think having an abortion should be allowed).

Your reasoning seems to be that a life is only valuable if it has an ability for moral philosophy.

No, no, it has nothing to do with ability to do moral philosophy. It just has to do with cognitive capabilities.

[Darth Ovious]

The word 'ableist' has an accepted different meaning.

You are discriminating against a human fetus because it is unable to do what other humans can do. As far as I'm concerned that sounds like ableism to me. not to mention there is no reason for a human fetus to be able to do what other humans can do.

Any paradigm of morality needs to set out what types of being are or aren't morally relevant (and why). For example, you and I both take the view that our actions towards a rock have no moral relevance. We can cut a rock to pieces and that's neither moral nor immoral, because a rock does not have moral status.

A rock is not a life to begin with.

Whereas we both agree that a living adult human does have moral status. So an important question then becomes: What is it that makes things morally relevant? What is it that makes an adult human morally relevant and a rock not? And how can we decide on the various things in-between (eg plants, animals, fetuses etc)?

I would say humanity. It needs to be as you can't use any other basis for it.

The answer that is almost universally given by moral philosophers is cognitive capabilities. In particular, possession of the attributes of consciousness, intention, and memory, are generally regarded as particularly important. Rocks do not posses these, and hence are morally irrelevant, while adult humans posses them and hence are morally relevant. Animals and developing fetuses occupy a middle-ground and are thus generally regarded as having some moral relevance, but a diminished amount.

Rocks are not life hence why they are not morally relevant. Animals do not count as morally relevant because THEY ARE A DIFFERENT SPECIES who conduct different actions from humans like I mentioned earlier. A female spider eats her mate and that is in no way relevant to what humans do to each other unless you want to argue that a human female should be able to eat her mate.

An alternative, somewhat arbitrary way to answer this question would be with reference to the bible and simply to point to the Bible's statement that God made humans "in the image of God". That becomes kind of vague about what exactly it is about humans that makes them morally relevant, and doesn't give a framework for understanding the extent of the moral relevance of animals or aliens, and it doesn't help us determine at what stage of development a human fetus might reach full moral status.

Go on then. Lets hear your argument for moral relevance for animals. lets hear how when a male lion kills it's predecessors cubs how that is in any way morally relevant to us. Go on, do it. I would love to see this because I know that all you have is baloney.

Just because animals sometimes don't act morally toward one another, that doesn't show whether we are justified in not acting morally toward them.

Human's are animals So if a human acts immorally towards you then by your own words "that doesn't show whether we are justified in not acting morally toward them". However you missed the point as always as it goes flying over your head. Other animals and humans DO NOT share a morality with each other. So how does that lead to "moral relevance"? How are they morally relevant to us? It's your claim that consciousness leads to morally relevance and yet you have no definitive answer to what that moral relevance is. Apparently when a spider eats it's mate it is being wicked and immoral to you. I don't understand on what basis you judge this to be considering it is something that spiders naturally do. I'm pretty sure that ALL FEMALE spiders have the instinct to eat their mate, it's just that some spiders like tarantulas have figured out a way to avoid it.

Nobody knows.

And you use this as the standard to decide that taking a human life is morally acceptable?

By 'soul' you mean 'soul'...?

Yes. You're the one who thinks that consciousness is an actuality rather than just an effect from brain impulses. I would like to know why.

I told you I'm not a materialist. Stop trying to pretend atheists have the views you keep trying to attribute to us.

So what is it then?

I don't know anyone who's had an abortion. I'm certainly not killing any unborn, and so I don't need an 'excuse' for it. I have almost zero interest in the topic of abortion other than as a thought-experiment in moral philosophy which is a subject that interests me. So I'm not making up 'excuses', I'm just saying what seems to be the logical consequences of standard moral views (and obviously most people agree with me, since most people think having an abortion should be allowed).

What you said here is irrelevant anyway. Just because you don't do it or that you don't know anybody who does it doesn't mean that you don't have some special interest in it. I don't know anybody who had an abortion either and I was certainly pro-life before I was a Christian.

No, no, it has nothing to do with ability to do moral philosophy. It just has to do with cognitive capabilities.

Which is completely arbitrary like I already said.

P1 - A human fetus has no cognitive capabilities

C1 - Therefore a human fetus can be killed.

It's a massive step there as far as I can see. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

[Roy]

Funny how the first sentence, of his definition, is lifted straight from the wiki article that he seems to think the rest of us are too stupid to go and find for ourselves.

You were.

[Roy]

"Information becomes protein" - First hint that Roy hasn't studied genetics, and that there might be a problem with the Wikipedia article.

Fine - you're on your own. Enjoy experiencing the Dunning-Kruger* effect first hand.

I'll simply point out that this:

All the time that I spent in the late '70s and early '80s trying to come to grips with the debate, and finally settling on the hard science of - well, genetics shows that the foetus is human and developing: ergo, a living human being.
I only imagined that I did all of that: how strange. Tis a good thing that Roy informed us of my error, otherwise I'd have never known.

is a lie - at no point did I even hint that foetuses are not human - and settle back to watch and laugh.

Roy

*ask Sparko.

[Sparko]

I'll simply point out that this:is a lie - at no point did I even hint that foetuses not being human - and settle back to watch and laugh.

In other words you think it is fine to kill an innocent human being and actually find the whole topic funny.

[Roy]

I'll simply point out that this:is a lie - at no point did I even hint that foetuses not being human - and settle back to watch and laugh.

In other words you think it is fine to kill an innocent human being...

...and that's a lie as well. I've have neither stated nor implied any such thing.

...and actually find the whole topic funny.

Not the whole topic, just tabibito's flailing. Also, you are applying a double standard - see post #82.

You can have the last insult now.

[Sparko]

...and that's a lie as well. I've have neither stated nor implied any such thing.Not the whole topic, just tabibito's flailing. Also, you are applying a double standard - see post #82.

You can have the last insult now.

OK so, a fetus is a human being and you do not think it is fine to kill an innocent human being?

So you are anti-abortion then?

[tabibito]

Fine - you're on your own. Enjoy experiencing the Dunning-Kruger* effect first hand.

I'll simply point out that this:is a lie - at no point did I even hint that foetuses are not human - and settle back to watch and laugh.

Roy

*ask Sparko.

Fully aware of the meaning of Dunning Kruger: to put it very loosely "delusions of adequacy". The sufferer often will manifest symptoms of nit-picking.

[Joel]

I don't see a difference between capability and capacity.

Something actually existing is different to the possibility of it existing some time in the future. It's that simple.

If someone currently has an IQ of 120, that's quite different from the possibility existing that they might gain an IQ of 120 sometime in the distant future.

No, it's not that simple.
Both capability and capacity mean a power to accomplish something in the future. The power is the thing that actually exists now. The something in the future is the thing that doesn't exist now. You are correct that those two are not the same thing. But the power actually exists now. Which is to say that the capacity/capability actually exists now (e.g., for the fetus and the adult in a temporary coma equally).

And if you want to use IQ as a property at a point in time like that, then it's something that can fluctuate over time for an adult: before and after coffee, after drinking alcohol, while sleeping, when growing elderly. And during a temporary coma, their IQ would be zero. But that doesn't mean it's fine to kill them. Which is the point I made before: that it's invalid to use their immediate state like that. Instead you'd need to use their capacity (e.g., to wake up from the coma in the future).

(Note: Assuming IQ is a valid measurement, the only thing it directly measures is actual cognitive activity. It only implies capability/capacity, in the sense that the action is proof that the capability/capacity to do so existed, in which case it implies that it existed since fertilization just as much as it implies that it existed at the start of the IQ test.)

[lilpixieofterror]

You were.

"I know what you are, but what am I!"

8 year old's everywhere are impressed by your rhetorical abilities. So got anymore sentences you care to rip off from wiki articles, so you can keep pretending you're smarter than all of those nasty people who dare to disagree with you?