Deliberation is a Natural phenomenon, in case that too slips your mind.
I dont want to enter this debate but i'm forced to counter spock on some points ;)
Deliberation in case of man is NOT a natural process. when intelligence and planning are involved (in the realm of buddhi), it ceases to be a natural process.
There is a difference between a lion's "natural instinct" to kill the cubs of other lions and a serial-rapist.
Abortion has to be dealt with in a case-by-case basis, wherein it is NOT legally banned AND is NOT encouraged too! The foolish christian theologians should re-think their arguments!
Deliberation in case of man is NOT a natural process. when intelligence and planning are involved (in the realm of buddhi), it ceases to be a natural process.
what makes you think a lion doesn't use intelligence or planning in killing other's cubs?
"You connot go against nature...because when you do, go against nature...it's part of nature too"
Abortion has to be dealt with in a case-by-case basis, wherein it is NOT legally banned AND is NOT encouraged too! The foolish christian theologians should re-think their arguments!
Abortion should be banned because it is the butchering of a human being. That has nothing to do with Christianity.
Just as a cancer cell and zygote, allthat differ between Lions and Humans are a combinationof Hydrocarbon chains ( with NH2Het groups ) called Genes.
So why should the "life" of a lion cub and a "life" of a human foetus be considered any differently ?
Deliberation in case of man is NOT a natural process. when intelligence and planning are involved (in the realm of buddhi), it ceases to be a natural process.
A Lion uses intelligence (Â stalking upwind ) and planning ( choosing the weakest prey within reach ) to avoid detection and make a successful kill.
Deliberation in case of man is no different. It has a WIDER scope because of the extent of the level of abstraction the human thought process is capable of.
Intelligence and planning are naturalphenomena too.
It simply differs in degreeamong species, notinkind!
There is a difference between a lion's "natural instinct" to kill the cubs of other lions and a serial-rapist.
Sure.
The serial-rapist has the addedabstract dimensions of "power" and "pleasure" in his thoughts.
But BOTH are a result of the naturalinstinct to maximise the scope of the individual's DNA replication.
So why should the "life" of a lion cub and a "life" of a human foetus be considered any differently ? Becuase, although you may think so, you aren't a lion. The meds will help so I suggest you take them.
If temperature increases, a piece of bimetallic strip logically/scientificallystarts hetergeneous expansion, creating a thermostat.
So what? who cares? It doesn't matter.
Whether there is a "living" Adam - and his rib- to enjoy the automatic switching on of the Air conditioner is notimportant in the scheme of things. See how long it will keep working without Adam. It wouldn't have been created without him.
Whether there is a "living" Adam - and his rib- to enjoy the sight of Stalactites and Stalagmites is notimportant in the scheme of things. None of it matters. It exists, but so what? It doesn't mean anything.
In that sense, logic and science are independent of "life". No. There is no logic without life. There may be existence but not logic. And science is just man's understanding of how things work. Without man there is no science.Â
Want me to continue ?
You can continue to make a fool of yourself. It is entertaining.
Becuase, although you may think so, you aren't a lion.
Certainly.
But bothlions and humans are just complex Hydrocarbon molecules.
Doesn'tmatter whose foetus is aborted.
So what? who cares? It doesn't matter.
Most certainly,- it DOESN'T matter.
But it wouldtake place in a scientificallyestablished and logicallyanticipated fashion, even if "life" didn'texist.
No. There is no logic without life. There may be existence but not logic.
When Electronic Circuits switch on AND, OR, NOR, NAND gates, it works on a certain "logic" of mathematical precision.
When meandering rivers cut through rocks, form Ox-bow Lakes or Waterfalls depending on the distribution of soils and geological formations, it follows a certain "logic" of geological precision.
When lightning strikes on a pole, it follows a certain "logic" of electromagnetic precision.
Does it need "life" to have "logic" ?
And science is just man's understanding of how things work. Without man there is no science.Â
The "understanding" of scientific processes is an abstraction of thinking processes.
The "working" of scientific processes ( Cosmology ) isn't.
Becuase, although you may think so, you aren't a lion.
Certainly.
Good! You are on your meds.
But bothlions and humans are just complex Hydrocarbon molecules.
So what? You want to limit your thinking fine.
Doesn'tmatter whose foetus is aborted. It doesn't matter to YOU. But it matters to people.
So what? who cares? It doesn't matter.
Most certainly,- it DOESN'T matter.
Then why don't you just shut up? Obviously you don't believe that it doesn't mater.
But it wouldtake place in a scientificallyestablished and logicallyanticipated fashion, even if "life" didn'texist. So what?
No. There is no logic without life. There may be existence but not logic.
When Electronic Circuits switch on AND, OR, NOR, NAND gates, it works on a certain "logic" of mathematical precision.
It may work but unless there is someone thinking about it it isn't logic.
When meandering rivers cut through rocks, form Ox-bow Lakes or Waterfalls depending on the distribution of soils and geological formations, it follows a certain "logic" of geological precision.
No it doesn't follow logic. rivers don't utilize logic, they can't.
When lightning strikes on a pole, it follows a certain "logic" of electromagnetic precision.
It doesn't follow any logic. It does what it does based on certain conditions.
Does it need "life" to have "logic" ? It doesn't have any logic.
I don't think you understand the term.
Scientific processes exist, man or no man.
Processes would exist without man, science wouldn't.
Thanks for playing.Â
You don't even know your own game. What a waste of time you have been.
It simply differs in degree among species, not in kind!
Not true. It is entirely different in kind! In the case of a lion, the mind is immersed in "change" called the body. Its intelligence is entirely dictated by genes. It cannot "know" what it is doing.
In the case of man there is the ability to isolate ourselves from the "change-body". We have this ability to be a witness to our own thoughts and feelings flying by in front of the mind's eyes. This gives us the ability to pick and choose things to do, the ability to over-ride nature / natural-instinct.
The serial-rapist has the added abstract dimensions of "power" and "pleasure" in his thoughts.
Precisely, this level of abstraction is possible only when there is a "conscious" effort at externalising natural instincts and manipulationg on them. This is hardly natural.
The term Science denotes FORMAL language describing the Information content of thoseprocess.
The Information ( as Entropy ) of these processes exist, even if "life" doesn't.
Hence the essence of Science - the Information - exists with or withoutlife.
Go figure.
Then why don't you just shut up? Obviously you don't believe that it doesn't mater.
Because the Universe is essentially a growing Decision Tree, and hence it is only choicethat matters at any instant.
Bible/Quran thumping zealots like you, if given an inch, would take a mile, and attempt to stifle the freedom/CHOICE of an individual to do with one's own body and mind - CHOICE to Abort being one such - as one pleases.
Even in humans, the "intelligence" is entirelydictated by genes.
It cannot "know" what it is doing.
Incorrect.
Genes dictate dispositiononly,- the instinctive nature.
But actingon the instinct to hunt a wild boar in the forests of Gir, or a Zebra in the valley of Ngorongoro requires knowledgeof the distinct surrounding, the best way to deliberatelyselect weak prey, stalk upwind and make the kill, which is ACQUIRED through an Iterative Learning Process usingintelligence.
None of this ( the learning curve ) is possible if the Lion doesn'tKNOW what it is doing.
In the case of man there is the ability to isolate ourselves from the "change-body". We have this ability to be a witness to our own thoughts and feelings flying by in front of the mind's eyes.
Self-reflection is not a human trait alone. Chimps, Gorillas and other Primates have - in controlled test environments - shown similar abilities.
The Feline and Canine families are perhaps lesscapable on this front than Primates. But even they - especially those species that have a Collective Hierarchy ( Lions, Hyenas, Wolves, Dogs ) - show a limited extentof self-reflection in the Individual( What is my place in my pride/pack hierarchy relative to the Alpha Male or Alpha Female?).
Thus it is in the variation of degreeof intelligence encoded in a DNA that determines if the threshold for self-reflection(detached from Pavlovian instinct) is reached, notin kind. :)
Lions sure haven't learned to use the Coriolis Force to flush their poop with 1.6 gallons of water.
actually, the coriolis effect has nothing to do with the flushing of a toilet, or the vortex that gets created in a bath tub. the masses of water on that level are so small that the forces that exist merely because of the moving water are far greater than the coriolis forces.
It may work but unless there is someone thinking about it it isn't logic.
if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make noise? does the fall create one or more pressure waves in the air surrounding it?
It doesn't matter to YOU. But it matters to people.
Which brings us back to the question,- WHYdoes it matter ?
It doesn't matter why. That is just the way it is. If you want to be productive in society you just need to accept that.
Obviously, you or "people" of your ilk havenoanswer to that straightforward query. Not all questions have answers. But the best answer is they have a conscience. Something you appear to lack.
Â
It doesn't followany logic. It does what it does based oncertain conditions.
Contradictions galore.
No. You just don't understand the proper use of logic or science.
In other words, the aforementioned actions follow the logic of "Sincethis condition exists therefore..." and "ifthis condition happens, then..."
Like I said you don't understand the words you are using. Get a dictionary.
You are mistaking the FORMAL language of Logic with the CONCEPT of Computational Logic in action.
Logic is something that the human mind applies. It has nothing to do with nature's processes. We use our minds to understand those processes but outside the human mind the term is inapplicable.
Processes would exist without man, science wouldn't.
Arethose Cosmological processes scientificor unscientific ? The term does not apply.Â
Science is knowledge. Science isn't the natural processes themselves but the human understanding of them.
The term Science denotes FORMAL language describing the Information content of thoseprocess. That's right it is the HUMAN understanding of those processes not the processes themselves.
The Information ( as Entropy ) of these processes exist, even if "life" doesn't. No the information would not exist. If man didn't exist then there would be no information. Get a dictionary, dude.
Hence the essence of Science - the Information - exists with or withoutlife. Again get a dictionary. If there was no human life then the data used to inform could not be gathered.Â
Â
Then why don't you just shut up? Obviously you don't believe that it doesn't mater.
Because the Universe is essentially a growing Decision Tree, and hence it is only choicethat matters at any instant. That is just meaningless babble.
Bible/Quran thumping zealots like you, if given an inch, would take a mile, and attempt to stifle the freedom/CHOICE of an individual to do with one's own body and mind - CHOICE to Abort being one such - as one pleases. In society people can't do everything one pleases. To do so is immature and selfish.
Abortion isn't about a woman's body. It is about the child's body. It is about ending that life that has began. And it is life. Because everyone goes through that stage. It is essential to human existence. And ending that process is the killing of a human being. I think JT is right you are an immature little brat. But you can grow out of it.
a. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
A system of reasoning.
A mode of reasoning.
The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
Valid reasoning.
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events.
Even in humans, the "intelligence" is entirely dictated by genes.
ofcourse, the basic ability for "intelligence" is genetic, but its the same ability that help "detach" from instincts, and hence the need for special rules and regulations for man!
Self-reflection is not a human trait alone. Chimps, Gorillas and other Primates have - in controlled test environments - shown similar abilities.
Again, the question is NOT if man is alone! The self-reflection ability in man is like a positive-loopback control system that has pushed him way way beyond everything else.
The point is, does self-reflection necessiate stronger rules for man's behavior? it surely does! this should make all your comparisions with animal kingdom DEFUNCT!:)
Bible/Quran thumping zealots like you, if given an inch, would take a mile, and attempt to stifle the freedom/CHOICE of an individual to do with one's own body and mind - CHOICE to Abort being one such - as one pleases.
I whole-heartedly agree to the first part!! But "freedom of choice / free to do as one pleases with one's body and mind" is a whole different issue. The "freedom" is ONLY in the confines of ORDER. Choice to abort, in the light of human's ability to self-reflect,is NOT a free-choice but a case-by-case basis choice. No one should be encouraged nor should anyone unduly suffer from a ban!!
 but its the same ability that help "detach" from instincts, and hence the need for special rules and regulations for man!
Detaching from instinct and making deliberate choices is also a naturalprocess in the evolutionary history.
Perhaps, it is designed to be the bestguarantee of Survival of the Fittest in human species by addinganother dimension ( exploring new combinatorial syntax, outside of instinctive pathway , through semantic reasoning) to the Natural Selection Process.
ImposingRules and Regulations on this would then be the unnatural act, and LIMIT the avenues of evolution.
The "freedom" is ONLY in the confines of ORDER.
Lest you forget, the Orderis guaranteed by the automatic self-correction mode of the standard Gaia Model of combinatorial "life" cycles, which maintains the equilibrium of resource utilisation.
Choice to abort, in the light of human's ability to self-reflect, is NOT a free-choice but a case-by-case basis choice. No one should be encouraged nor should anyone unduly suffer from a ban!!
Therein lies the rub.
The choiceto Abort is what defines the Freedom of an Individual to effect anotherpathway for Natural Selection to continue.
It is in the unpredictability of that choice, coupled with the known model of resource equilibrium, that would allow for newer facets of Evolutionary recombinations.
On the other hand, it is individual Self-reflection - added to the Collective self-reflection ( that would discourageimpulsive decisions on such a choice) that would allow an individual to carefully decide the consequences of either choice in the decision node.
The choiceto Abort is what defines the Freedom of an Individual to effect anotherpathway for Natural Selection to continue.
The freedom of the unborn child is compromised. Natural selection would be to let the process go forward. Human intervention isn't natural selection, moron.
Very logical. Very scientific. Very productive. :)
If you want to be productive in society you just need to accept that.
And whydo you want to productivein society in the first place ?
What do you produce?
Not all questions have answers.
Â
But the best answer is they have a conscience.
Chortle.
So you don'thave the answer, right ?
Lest you forget, this "conscience" nonsense is not an objectivecriterion, and hence unscientificand illogical. Thus it is inadmissible for the purpose of a logical debate.
No the information would not exist. If man didn't exist then there would be no information.
The unborn child is entirelydependent on the Amniotic fluid, the Placental Osmosis and Umbilical Cord for "life".
If the pregnant woman dies, the unborn child only has as much time to live as the nutrient and oxygen content of the ( unreplenished ) Amniotic sac would allow.
It therefore has nofreedom .
Natural selection would be to let the process go forward. Human intervention isn't natural selection, moron.
You forgot what you once admitted,- Humans area partof Nature.
Human intervention merely adds one moredimension to NaturalSelection.
Just as intervention by bacteria, virus or predators do.
Very logical. Very scientific. Very productive. :)
Your religion is your science. You have blind faith in it.
If you want to be productive in society you just need to accept that.
And whydo you want to productivein society in the first place ?
What a moronic question. Do you think such question make you look intelligent? They don't.
Not all questions have answers.
Â
But the best answer is they have a conscience.
Chortle.
That just might be funny to someone withouy a conscience.
So you don'thave the answer, right ? I have the answer. Just because it is one you don't like doesn't mean that it isn't an answer. You are full of yourself, dude.
Lest you forget, this "conscience" nonsense is not an objectivecriterion, and hence unscientificand illogicall. Thus it is inadmissible for the purpose of a logical debate. Like I said science is your religion. And you irrationally cling to it even when you don't understand it.
No the information would not exist. If man didn't exist then there would be no information.
Define "Information" scientifically.Â
I can't be sure what it is you mean. Open a damn dictionary and read it.
It will clarify the cloud of lower intestinal gaseous discharge that fogs your brain currently. I get it, your believe
you are superior? But it is clear you have an inferiority complex.
, you have missed the following definition of Logic :
[ The relationshipbetween elementsand between anelement and thewhole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events.]
Where does "life" figure in it ? It takes someone to observe it, stupid shit. It is something people observe.
And it is life. Because everyone goes through that stage. It is essential to human existence. And ending that process is the killing of a human being.
In your own admission, there is no need for human existence.
Then do the world a favor and kill yourself.
The rest of your argument is therefore specious and dispensable. You don't think. You will disregard anything that conflicts with your own religious dogma. You do not consider any alternatives.
If there was no human life then the data used to inform could not be gathered.Â
tell that to the next blind person with a seeing eye dog you come across.
Smart one, ares! Not surprising you miss the point. You usually do.  Dogs are alive and are able to observe. But their abilities to gather and. manipulate the data is limited. Now apply the concept to a rock.
ya know jethro, you never did respond to the question i posed above. if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make noise?
The unborn child is entirelydependent on the Amniotic fluid, the Placental Osmosis and Umbilical Cord for "life".
We are all dependent on something. You are dependent on air and water.
If the pregnant woman dies, the unborn child only has as much time to live as the nutrient and oxygen content of the ( unreplenished ) Amniotic sac would allow. So what? If you are deprived of air or water you will die.
It therefore has nofreedom. Â
The child has life, like you and you aren't free from the need of water, food and air. There for under in your twisted mind you would have no freedom.
Natural selection would be to let the process go forward. Human intervention isn't natural selection, moron.
You forgot what you once admitted,- Humans area partof Nature.
A part of nature but not nature itself. You need to look up the definition of natural selection because, again you are proving that you do not understand what it is you are referring to. Natural selection means that that those entities that have characteristics that help them to become adapted to their environment tend to leave more offspring than those less able to adapt. Abortion when applied can defeat natural selection. Because the most fit may kill their offspring leaving room for the less fit.Â
Human intervention merely adds one moredimension to NaturalSelection. Again you need to read up on what natural selection means. But of course, you won't.
Go figure. What I figure is that you need an education.
ya know jethro, you never did respond to the question i posed above. if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make noise?
I did with when I posted the definition of logic. I admit it was a direct answer. And I know I expected to much from you to glean the response. If there is no living entity around to hear it then there is no noise as that word is understood. There would be pressure waves but unless there is something to detect them it is irrelevant. The word logic refers to man's ability to reason. There is no logic without man. What ever nature does, therefore, has nothing to do with logic.
Detaching from instinct and making deliberate choices is also a natural process in the evolutionary history.
Sure! it is the nature-given power to man's free-spirit- away from the mechanistic-perpetual-oscillatory universe.
Imposing Rules and Regulations on this would then be the unnatural act, and LIMIT the avenues of evolution
it should be the otherway around! Rules and Regulations are "natural"!The ORDER in the animal world is NOT a problem, they have an innate sense of order and fairness. u cant find a serial rapist lion can u?? nature takes care of preservation of order there.
man is a different cup of tea, the instincts thru which Nature establishes order is NOT enough since man goes beyond them. hence the need for external RULES, that are in tune with Natures laws, we call "Universal Morality", It is NOT christian nor is it Hindu-Buddhist!!!
Lest you forget, the Order is guaranteed by the automatic self-correction mode of the standard Gaia Model of combinatorial "life" cycles, which maintains the equilibrium of resource utilisation.
Nothing is guaranteed. if some luny american decides to test a few nuke arsenals, what resources are left...for whom??!!!
it is individual Self-reflection - added to the Collective self-reflection ( that would discourage impulsive decisions on such a choice) that would allow an individual to carefully decide the consequences of either choice in the decision node.
Agreed! The point being that your argument comparing humans with other lower animals or cancerous tissue is NOT tenable.
 It takes someone to observe it, stupid shit. It is something people observe.
Does lightning dependon someone to "observe" which pole is the highest , and then discharge itself ?
Does a river dependon someone to "observe" which geographical formation is the weak spot, and then create an Oxbow Lake ?
Or is there an inbuilt computationallogic ( sincethere is this condition, therefore... ) that determines the sequence of events in these phenomena ?
I can't be sure what it is you mean. Open a damn dictionary and read it.
Which is why our "freedom" is only restricted to an environment with Temperature range between 50 Celsius and -50 Celsius, abundant Oxygen and drinking water.
But, thankfully, there is NO oneperson that can controlthat environment, and hence my destiny.
On the other hand, a woman is oneperson that can control the destiny and has the choiceto either sustain or terminate that environment for the unborn multicellular tissue.
 part of nature but not nature itself.
Chortle.
Nature is the sumof its parts.
Natural Selection , therefore, works by the synergy of action of its parts.
 Natural selection means that that those entities that have characteristics that help them to become adapted to their environment tend to leave more offspring than those less able to adapt.Â
It is notthe amountof replication that is called Natural Selection, but a successful replication that sustains itself.
Elimination of unwantedfoetus gives more probability ( less competition )  for the wantedfoetus to survive and sustain itself in the limited-resource equilibrium.
Sure! it is the nature-given power to man's free-spirit- away from the mechanistic-perpetual-oscillatory universe.
Slight correction.
It is a probabilisticfluctuation,- the dynamic interaction of energy fields.
it should be the otherway around! Rules and Regulations are "natural"!
Only the Cosmologicallaws that govern the manifest universe,- Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics etc.
Even under such laws, there are several degrees of freedom at the subatomic level.
Any rules that CURTAIL the freedom ( principle of uncertainty ) is unnatural. :)
The ORDER in the animal world is NOT a problem, they have an innate sense of order and fairness.
The orderin the animal world is a dynamic one, constantly seeking newer equilibrium with the introduction and extinction of new species.
Introduction of Periplaneta Americana in Asia, and the hunting extinction of Acinonyx jubatus venaticus from South Asia have dynamically resulted in the creation of a newer equilibrium and order.
To talk of "order" as natural is untenable. We can only talk of a dynamic equilibrium.
What is technicallycalled equilibrium is commonly called "fairness" of the animal world.
u cant find a serial rapist lion can u?? nature takes care of preservation of order there.
A lion has evolved to battle it out with the Protector Alpha Male of a Pride and take control of the ENTIRE harem, if successful.
You can very well see a "serial" rapist, or an opportune adulterer, among some Primate species, and lewd genital exhibitionism among male Capuchin Monkeys.
You think humans are any special ? :)
Nothing is guaranteed. if some luny american decides to test a few nuke arsenals, what resources are left...for whom??!!!
All the resources are left for the nextsequence of active recombination of molecules, NOT NECESSARILY hydrocarbon.
The point being that your argument comparing humans with other lower animals or cancerous tissue is NOT tenable.
There is no flaw in the comparison.
As long as "life" is just a non-semantic molecular permutation and combination, "human" life is as meaningless or valueless as that of a cancerous tissue or "lower" animals.
Does lightning dependon someone to "observe" which pole is the highest , and then discharge itself ? No but to compare or relate it to something else you have to have an observer. You can take a sentence out of context but it does not prove anything other than your dishonesty.
Does a river dependon someone to "observe" which geographical formation is the weak spot, and then create an Oxbow Lake ? Again you are being dishonest.
Or is there an inbuilt computationallogic ( sincethere is this condition, therefore... ) that determines the sequence of events in these phenomena ? No logic is reason. Inanimate objects don't can't reason. Simply because you can obfuscate, even if you were doing it intentionally does not mean you are intelligent.
Did that rattle your knees, or are you too dense to comprehendwhat it means ? I comprehend you quite well. You are insecure little twit trying to prove your not stupid.
I am willingto entertain any logicalreposte. No you are not. You can't think outside of the box you put yourself in.
Thus far, you have been prancing around with vacuous and vague cliches like "it matters to most people" kind of nonsensical statements. They make perfect sense.
We are all dependent on something.
But noton someone.
Oh yes you are. Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Build your own shelter? Just about everyone is dependent on someone else. You were certainly dependent on your mother, my guess is that you still are, maybe like Norman Bates. Poor woman she must be ashamed of you.
Comprende, amigo ?
You do live in your own little world don't you? Once you get out from under Mom's roof, upi'll be better off.
But, thankfully, there is NO oneperson that can controlthat environment, and hence my destiny.
People certainly can control you and your destiny. People have been controlled thoughout history. You are being controlled by your mother or your mental disorder.
On the other hand, a woman is oneperson that can control the destiny and has the choiceto either sustain or terminate that environment for the unborn multicellular tissue.
Your point is what?  People have a choice in lots say whether to have peas or green beans with dinner. They also have a choice to do things like murder, rape and pillage. Just because someone has a choice is meaningless.Â
 part of nature but not nature itself.
Chortle.
That is certainly a logical response.
Natural Selection , therefore, works by the synergy of action of its parts. Look up natural selection, junior.
It is notthe amountof replication that is called Natural Selection, but a successful replication that sustains itself.
Abortion ends that sucessful selection. Therefore, abortion is at odds with natural selection.
Elimination of unwantedfoetus gives more probability ( less competition )  for the wantedfoetus to survive and sustain itself in the limited-resource equilibrium.
No abortion destroys naturally selected offspring. It interferes with nature.
As long as "life" is just a non-semantic molecular permutation and combination, "human" life is as meaningless or valueless as that of a cancerous tissue or "lower" animals.
No but to compare or relate it to something else you have to have an observer.
Inanimate objects don't can't reason.
They canmeasure, and computational logicis based onmeasurement of "conditions".
"Observer" is redundant in this scenario.
Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Build your own shelter? Just about everyone is dependent on someone else.
That's their choice.
I have the freedom to, and thus cangrow my own food, or hunt/gather it.
I have the freedom to, and thus canspin my own yarn and stitch my own clothes.
I have the freedom to, and thus canbuild my own thatched hut or brick shelter.
But I choosenot to.
Quite unlike a foetus, which is fullydependent on oneperson, and doesn'thave the freedom or choice to be otherwise.
That's why it isdependent, and it is the choiceof the woman to sustain or abort it.
People certainly can control you and your destiny.
Only if youlet them to.
The foetus has nosuch option.
Just because someone has a choice is meaningless.Â
Don't be that dense.
The woman hasthe choice to sustain or abort the foetus. Whether she acts upon it is herprerogative.
The foetus has nosuch choice. That's the differencebetween independence and dependence.
Comprende amigo ?
Abortion ends that sucessful selection. Therefore, abortion is at odds with natural selection.
No abortion destroys naturally selected offspring. It interferes with nature.
You didn't understand the concept.
In this case, the mother doesn'twant the foetus. It is doomed from the view of Natural Selection, - just like a Snake often eats its own offspring.
Human intervention ( Abortion ) is also a naturalintervention, adding one more dimension to Natural Selection.
By eliminating competition ( unwanted foetus )Â through PlannedParenthood, Natural Selection is actually helping the wanted/plannedchild to sustain itself in the fight for limited resources.
They canmeasure, and computational logicis based onmeasurement of "conditions".
You are daft man. Again you are misusing terms.
"Observer" is redundant in this scenario.
Only if you don't know what you are talking about.
Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Build your own shelter? Just about everyone is dependent on someone else.
That's their choice.
What does that have to do with dependence?
I have the freedom to, and thus cangrow my own food, or hunt/gather it. You could try. But then you wouldn't be free to do what you are doing now.
I have the freedom to, and thus canspin my own yarn and stitch my own clothes. Again that would take time away from what you are doing now. You fool yourself if you think you are truly free.
But I choosenot to. You "choose" not to because you can't.
Quite unlike a foetus, which is fullydependent on oneperson, and doesn'thave the freedom or choice to be otherwise. Lacking freedom or choice is not a logical reason to kill. It is simply a rationalization.
That's why it isdependent, and it is the choiceof the woman to sustain or abort it. You really think that is logic? As demon would say that is a fallacy. The result is not supported by the premise
People certainly can control you and your destiny.
Only if youlet them to.
The Iraqi people just let Saddam control them. The same with Hitler and Stalin.
The foetus has nosuch option. Having an option or a choice is irrelevant to anything. A newborn doesn't have options either.
Just because someone has a choice is meaningless.Â
Don't be that dense.
Dense? What the hell are you talking about? Your brain must be fogged by the purple haze.
The woman hasthe choice to sustain or abort the foetus. Whether she acts upon it is herprerogative.
Under the law. But the law is not supported by morality. The only thing that you seem to offer is that you think it is right to abort.
The foetus has nosuch choice. That's the differencebetween independence and dependence.
An irrelevant difference.
Comprende amigo ?
I understand that you have nothing to offer except that it is what you want. You have no logic to support abortion.
Abortion ends that sucessful selection. Therefore, abortion is at odds with natural selection.
No abortion destroys naturally selected offspring. It interferes with nature.
You didn't understand the concept.
It is you that doesn't understand.
In this case, the mother doesn'twant the foetus. It is doomed from the view of Natural Selection, - just like a Snake often eats its own offspring.
No it isn't doomed. There are a hell of lot of people walking around that prove you wrong.
Human intervention ( Abortion ) is also a naturalintervention, adding one more dimension to Natural Selection. It isn't "natural" and you saying so doesn't change that. Abortion is at odds with natural selection. But it is clear in your world black is white if you say it is.
By eliminating competition ( unwanted foetus )Â through PlannedParenthood, Natural Selection is actually helping the wanted/plannedchild to sustain itself in the fight for limited resources. Again it isn't natural selection. Natural selection would be allowing them all to live and those that get their share through strength or cunning would survive. The fact is abortion can kill the fittest of the species.
You could try. But then you wouldn't be free to do what you are doing now.
Do I needto do what I am doing right now ? No.
So, your contention is irelevant.
CanI grow my own food ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
CanI stitch my own clothes ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
CanI build my own shelter ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
Lacking freedom or choice is not a logical reason to kill. It is simply a rationalization.
Correct your misperceptions first.
Nobodyis suggesting that all women kill allunborn foetus.
The question is whether awoman has the logicalright to terminate an unwantedfoetus.
Since the unwanted foetus has nofreedom - being totally dependent on the Amniotic Sac -Â and the womanisin a position to sustain or terminate it, the choiceis logically hers.
Kapisch ?
The Iraqi people just let Saddam control them.
The same with Hitler and Stalin.
Yes they did
.
Just like monarchies of yore.
The survivalinstinct of the weak ( subjects ) call for the Flight Syndrome, letting the Alpha Male set the rules. Case: Quisling of Norway under Hitler's threat.
Those that don't like being controlled go for the Fight Response, and get killed. Like the Shias after the First Gulf War under Saddam's regime.
A newborn doesn't have options either.
Many a newbornhas been found alive, dumped in garbage vats.
Apparently, they DO have options once their Placental connections are severed , and they can breathe in the atmosphere.
Unlike an unbornFoetus.
Under the law. But the law is not supported by morality.
Morality is a collective abstraction with noabsolute basis.
Good and bad are relative terms, and they merely vary in degree not in kind.
What is good for you ( low cost at consumer end ) may actually be badto another ( price depression at producer end ).
Moreover the entire edifice of Morality assumesthe need to live ( which has been proved to be illogical ) ,  and thus an accompanying carrot-stick policy to enforce it.
Hence, it is irrelevant and inadmissible in a logical discussion.
There are a hell of lot of people walking around that prove you wrong.
You sorely miss the point.
An unwantedfoetus is doomed. Why else do you think dead newborns are found in garbage vats, or in marshlands ?
Wanted children are notdoomed. It is they that are walking around.
Natural selection would be allowing them all to live and those that get their share through strength or cunning would survive.
In the wild, turtle eggs and alligator eggs hatch in hundreds, but onlya few make it back to the open waters.
Allowing them ALL to live is notthe decision of Nature.
MOST of them are terminated even BEFORE strength and cunning have developed in the individuals.
But that TOO is just one dimension of Natural Selection.
Abortion is another,- one that helps eliminate competition.
The fact is abortion can kill the fittest of the species.
Fitness is in survival against the will of the remainder of Nature.
The symbiote foetus that is aborted did notqualify the criterion of "want" of the immediate carrier.
It is unfit, and is eliminated.
No problems anywhere. Except in that little book called the Bible.
CanI grow my own food ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
I doubt if you could.
CanI stitch my own clothes ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
I doubt if you could.
CanI build my own shelter ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
I doubt if you could. You have freedom not to do all of the above things because someone else is doing them for you.
Lacking freedom or choice is not a logical reason to kill. It is simply a rationalization.
Correct your misperceptions first.
My misperceptions? I don't have any.
Nobodyis suggesting that all women kill allunborn foetus.
It doesn't matter if one does or they all do. It doesn't change what it is that is being done.
The question is whether awoman has the logicalright to terminate an unwantedfoetus. There is nothing logical about abortion except maybe when the woman's life is in imminent danger. But even then it is often made, and understandably so, based on self interest.
Since the unwanted foetus has nofreedom - being totally dependent on the Amniotic Sac -Â and the womanisin a position to sustain or terminate it, the choiceis logically hers. Freedom or lack of freedom is irrelevant. It makes no logical sense to butcher the baby because some whacked out idea of what freedom is. Freedom is something that is always weighed against the interests of society. Do you
kapisch ?
The Iraqi people just let Saddam control them.
The same with Hitler and Stalin.
Yes they did
.
You are a fool.
A newborn doesn't have options either.
Many a newbornhas been found alive, dumped in garbage vats.
Yes by
chance. But what does that have to do with choice or freedom? Nothing.
Apparently, they DO have options once their Placental connections are severed , and they can breathe in the atmosphere. Unlike an unbornFoetus. Yeah they have the choice to get out of the dumpster. What idiocy! The child should have the option to live before it is born with the mother having a choice to violate the law by obtaining an abortion.
Under the law. But the law is not supported by morality.
Morality is a collective abstraction with noabsolute basis.
There are certain actions that are absolutely right and some that are absolutely wrong. You put to much stock in science. You know it is being revised all the time, don't you?
Moreover the entire edifice of Morality assumesthe need to live ( which has been proved to be illogical ) ,  and thus an accompanying carrot-stick policy to enforce it. There is a desire to live. Carrot stick policy?
Hence, it is irrelevant and inadmissible in a logical discussion. You don't know what logical is. You think rocks have logic. This board isn't just about what YOU think is logical or relevant. This board isn't here for you to limit the scope of ideas.
There are a hell of lot of people walking around that prove you wrong.
You sorely miss the point.
I know that your point is absurd.
An unwantedfoetus is doomed. You make an assumption that has been proven wrong over and over again. Why else do you think dead newborns are found in garbage vats, or in marshlands ?
But not all unwanted newborns meet that end. Many are put up for adoption.
Wanted children are notdoomed. Some are. You may have been wanted, spock, but you were doomed.It is they that are walking around. Unwanted children are walking around to and many are living very happy and productive lives.
Â
In the wild, turtle eggs and alligator eggs hatch in hundreds, but onlya few make it back to the open waters.
So?
Abortion is another,- one that helps eliminate competition. Abortion may kill the fittest. But it isn't done to eliminate any competition.
Fitness is in survival against the will of the remainder of Nature. No it isn't. Some of nature may want it to live
The symbiote foetus that is aborted did notqualify the criterion of "want" of the immediate carrier. The desire or lack of it may have nothing to do with logic.
It is unfit, and is eliminated. You don't know it is unfit. The mother may be unfit and maybe the mother should be eliminated but do we allow that?
No problems anywhere. Except in that little book called the Bible. You are the only one bringing up the Bible. You won't find a whole lot about abortion in there. But you will find something about compassion. But you wouldn't comprehend that.
hello,
Mr Spock 7/28/04 6:33am
Deliberation is a Natural phenomenon, in case that too slips your mind.
I dont want to enter this debate but i'm forced to counter spock on some points ;)
Deliberation in case of man is NOT a natural process. when intelligence and planning are involved (in the realm of buddhi), it ceases to be a natural process.
There is a difference between a lion's "natural instinct" to kill the cubs of other lions and a serial-rapist.
Abortion has to be dealt with in a case-by-case basis, wherein it is NOT legally banned AND is NOT encouraged too! The foolish christian theologians should re-think their arguments!
what makes you think a lion doesn't use intelligence or planning in killing other's cubs?
"You connot go against nature...because when you do, go against nature...it's part of nature too"
Abortion has to be dealt with in a case-by-case basis, wherein it is NOT legally banned AND is NOT encouraged too! The foolish christian theologians should re-think their arguments!
Abortion should be banned because it is the butchering of a human being. That has nothing to do with Christianity.
murder is a natural process so I suggest it should be legal. Besides life doesn't matter anyway.
Wonderful.
Just as a cancer cell and zygote, allthat differ between Lions and Humans are a combinationof Hydrocarbon chains ( with NH2Het groups ) called Genes.
So why should the "life" of a lion cub and a "life" of a human foetus be considered any differently ?
If temperature increases, a piece of bimetallic strip logically/scientificallystarts heterogeneous expansion, creating a thermostat.
Whether there is a "living" Adam - and his rib- to enjoy the automatic switching on of the Air conditioner is notimportant in the scheme of things.
When there is Carbon Dioxide in water, it will create a weak Carbonic Acid that slowly leeches and corrodes a piece of Limestone.
Whether there is a "living" Adam - and his rib- to enjoy the sight of Stalactites and Stalagmites is notimportant in the scheme of things.
In that sense, logic and science are independent of "life".
Want me to continue ?
Â
A Lion uses intelligence (Â stalking upwind ) and planning ( choosing the weakest prey within reach ) to avoid detection and make a successful kill.
Deliberation in case of man is no different. It has a WIDER scope because of the extent of the level of abstraction the human thought process is capable of.
Intelligence and planning are naturalphenomena too.
It simply differs in degreeamong species, notinkind!
Sure.
The serial-rapist has the addedabstract dimensions of "power" and "pleasure" in his thoughts.
But BOTH are a result of the naturalinstinct to maximise the scope of the individual's DNA replication.
Hardly a difference. :)
So why should the "life" of a lion cub and a "life" of a human foetus be considered any differently ? Becuase, although you may think so, you aren't a lion. The meds will help so I suggest you take them.
If temperature increases, a piece of bimetallic strip logically/scientificallystarts hetergeneous expansion, creating a thermostat.
So what? who cares? It doesn't matter.
Whether there is a "living" Adam - and his rib- to enjoy the automatic switching on of the Air conditioner is notimportant in the scheme of things. See how long it will keep working without Adam. It wouldn't have been created without him.
Whether there is a "living" Adam - and his rib- to enjoy the sight of Stalactites and Stalagmites is notimportant in the scheme of things. None of it matters. It exists, but so what? It doesn't mean anything.
In that sense, logic and science are independent of "life". No. There is no logic without life. There may be existence but not logic. And science is just man's understanding of how things work. Without man there is no science.Â
Want me to continue ?
You can continue to make a fool of yourself. It is entertaining.
Hardly a difference.
No, it is agreat difference.
Certainly.
But bothlions and humans are just complex Hydrocarbon molecules.
Doesn'tmatter whose foetus is aborted.
Most certainly,- it DOESN'T matter.
But it wouldtake place in a scientificallyestablished and logicallyanticipated fashion, even if "life" didn'texist.
When Electronic Circuits switch on AND, OR, NOR, NAND gates, it works on a certain "logic" of mathematical precision.
When meandering rivers cut through rocks, form Ox-bow Lakes or Waterfalls depending on the distribution of soils and geological formations, it follows a certain "logic" of geological precision.
When lightning strikes on a pole, it follows a certain "logic" of electromagnetic precision.
Does it need "life" to have "logic" ?
The "understanding" of scientific processes is an abstraction of thinking processes.
The "working" of scientific processes ( Cosmology ) isn't.
Scientific processes exist, man or no man.
Thanks for playing.
It would make more sense if you shed sweeping vacuous statements and specious generalisations, and provided logicalresponses instead.
Too much for a religious zealot ? :)
Becuase, although you may think so, you aren't a lion.
Certainly.
Good! You are on your meds.
But bothlions and humans are just complex Hydrocarbon molecules.
So what? You want to limit your thinking fine.
Doesn'tmatter whose foetus is aborted. It doesn't matter to YOU. But it matters to people.
Most certainly,- it DOESN'T matter.
Then why don't you just shut up? Obviously you don't believe that it doesn't mater.
But it wouldtake place in a scientificallyestablished and logicallyanticipated fashion, even if "life" didn'texist. So what?
When Electronic Circuits switch on AND, OR, NOR, NAND gates, it works on a certain "logic" of mathematical precision.
It may work but unless there is someone thinking about it it isn't logic.
When meandering rivers cut through rocks, form Ox-bow Lakes or Waterfalls depending on the distribution of soils and geological formations, it follows a certain "logic" of geological precision.
No it doesn't follow logic. rivers don't utilize logic, they can't.
When lightning strikes on a pole, it follows a certain "logic" of electromagnetic precision.
It doesn't follow any logic. It does what it does based on certain conditions.
Does it need "life" to have "logic" ? It doesn't have any logic.
I don't think you understand the term.
Scientific processes exist, man or no man.
Processes would exist without man, science wouldn't.
Thanks for playing.Â
You don't even know your own game. What a waste of time you have been.
hello,
Mr Spock 7/28/04 1:40pm
It simply differs in degree among species, not in kind!
Not true. It is entirely different in kind! In the case of a lion, the mind is immersed in "change" called the body. Its intelligence is entirely dictated by genes. It cannot "know" what it is doing.
In the case of man there is the ability to isolate ourselves from the "change-body". We have this ability to be a witness to our own thoughts and feelings flying by in front of the mind's eyes. This gives us the ability to pick and choose things to do, the ability to over-ride nature / natural-instinct.
The serial-rapist has the added abstract dimensions of "power" and "pleasure" in his thoughts.
Precisely, this level of abstraction is possible only when there is a "conscious" effort at externalising natural instincts and manipulationg on them. This is hardly natural.
Which brings us back to the question,- WHYdoes it matter ?
Obviously, you or "people" of your ilk havenoanswer to that straightforward query.
Thanks for playing!
Contradictions galore.
In your ownwords, The actions of all these are based oncertain conditions.
In other words, the aforementioned actions follow the
logic
of "Sincethis condition exists therefore..." and "ifthis condition happens, then..."
You are mistaking the FORMAL language of Logic with the CONCEPT of Computational Logic in action.
Go figure.
Arethose Cosmological processes scientificor unscientific ?
The term Science denotes FORMAL language describing the Information content of thoseprocess.
The
Information
( as Entropy ) of these processes exist, even if "life" doesn't.
Hence the
essence
of Science - the Information - exists with or withoutlife.
Go figure.
Because the Universe is essentially a growing Decision Tree, and hence it is only choicethat matters at any instant.
Bible/Quran thumping zealots like you, if given an inch, would take a mile, and attempt to stifle the freedom/CHOICE of an individual to do with one'sÂ
own
body and mind - CHOICE to Abort being one such - as one pleases.
Even in humans, the "intelligence" is entirelydictated by genes.
Incorrect.
Genes dictate dispositiononly,- the instinctive nature.
But actingon the instinct to hunt a wild boar in the forests of Gir, or a Zebra in the valley of Ngorongoro requires knowledgeof the distinct surrounding, the best way to deliberatelyselect weak prey, stalk upwind and make the kill, which is ACQUIRED through an Iterative Learning Process usingintelligence.
None of this ( the learning curve ) is possible if the Lion doesn'tKNOW what it is doing.
Self-reflection is not a human trait alone. Chimps, Gorillas and other Primates have - in controlled test environments - shown similar abilities.
The Feline and Canine families are perhaps lesscapable on this front than Primates. But even they - especially those species that have a Collective Hierarchy ( Lions, Hyenas, Wolves, Dogs ) - show a limited extentof self-reflection in the Individual( What is my place in my pride/pack hierarchy relative to the Alpha Male or Alpha Female?).
Thus it is in the variation of degreeof intelligence encoded in a DNA that determines if the threshold for self-reflection(detached from Pavlovian instinct) is reached, notin kind. :)
Recent college grads that took logic classes.
Lions sure haven't learned to use the Coriolis Force to flush their poop with 1.6 gallons of water.
actually, the coriolis effect has nothing to do with the flushing of a toilet, or the vortex that gets created in a bath tub. the masses of water on that level are so small that the forces that exist merely because of the moving water are far greater than the coriolis forces.
It may work but unless there is someone thinking about it it isn't logic.
if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make noise? does the fall create one or more pressure waves in the air surrounding it?
It doesn't matter to YOU. But it matters to people.
Which brings us back to the question,- WHYdoes it matter ?
It doesn't matter why. That is just the way it is. If you want to be productive in society you just need to accept that.
Obviously, you or "people" of your ilk havenoanswer to that straightforward query. Not all questions have answers. But the best answer is they have a conscience. Something you appear to lack.
Â
Contradictions galore.
No. You just don't understand the proper use of logic or science.
In other words, the aforementioned actions follow the
logic
of "Sincethis condition exists therefore..." and "ifthis condition happens, then..."
Like I said you don't understand the words you are using. Get a dictionary.
You are mistaking the FORMAL language of Logic with the CONCEPT of Computational Logic in action.
Logic is something that the human mind applies. It has nothing to do with nature's processes. We use our minds to understand those processes but outside the human mind the term is inapplicable.
Arethose Cosmological processes scientificor unscientific ? The term does not apply.Â
Science is knowledge. Science isn't the natural processes themselves but the human understanding of them.
The term Science denotes FORMAL language describing the Information content of thoseprocess. That's right it is the HUMAN understanding of those processes not the processes themselves.
The
Information
( as Entropy ) of these processes exist, even if "life" doesn't. No the information would not exist. If man didn't exist then there would be no information. Get a dictionary, dude.
Hence the
essence
of Science - the Information - exists with or withoutlife. Again get a dictionary. If there was no human life then the data used to inform could not be gathered.Â
Â
Because the Universe is essentially a growing Decision Tree, and hence it is only choicethat matters at any instant. That is just meaningless babble.
Bible/Quran thumping zealots like you, if given an inch, would take a mile, and attempt to stifle the freedom/CHOICE of an individual to do with one'sÂ
own
body and mind - CHOICE to Abort being one such - as one pleases. In society people can't do everything one pleases. To do so is immature and selfish.
Abortion isn't about a woman's body. It is about the child's body. It is about ending that life that has began. And it is life. Because everyone goes through that stage. It is essential to human existence. And ending that process is the killing of a human being. I think JT is right you are an immature little brat. But you can grow out of it.
The definition of logic:
you know how to define, but still don't know what it means.
That's funny
Just part of a womans body?
hello,
Mr Spock 7/29/04 7:40am
Even in humans, the "intelligence" is entirely dictated by genes.
ofcourse, the basic ability for "intelligence" is genetic, but its the same ability that help "detach" from instincts, and hence the need for special rules and regulations for man!
Self-reflection is not a human trait alone. Chimps, Gorillas and other Primates have - in controlled test environments - shown similar abilities.
Again, the question is NOT if man is alone! The self-reflection ability in man is like a positive-loopback control system that has pushed him way way beyond everything else.
The point is, does self-reflection necessiate stronger rules for man's behavior? it surely does! this should make all your comparisions with animal kingdom DEFUNCT!:)
Mr Spock 7/29/04 7:18am
Bible/Quran thumping zealots like you, if given an inch, would take a mile, and attempt to stifle the freedom/CHOICE of an individual to do with one's own body and mind - CHOICE to Abort being one such - as one pleases.
I whole-heartedly agree to the first part!! But "freedom of choice / free to do as one pleases with one's body and mind" is a whole different issue. The "freedom" is ONLY in the confines of ORDER. Choice to abort, in the light of human's ability to self-reflect,is NOT a free-choice but a case-by-case basis choice. No one should be encouraged nor should anyone unduly suffer from a ban!!
you know how to define, but still don't know what it means.
That's funny
What's funny is you apparently don't understand what "definition" means. I am sorry but all I can about you and spock is that, "damn you are stupid."
No one should be encouraged nor should anyone unduly suffer from a ban!!
The unborn child suffers alot by allowing abortion.
jethro bodine 7/29/04 8:42am
heh, says the guy who still believes in the fairy tale of christianity
Detaching from instinct and making deliberate choices is also a naturalprocess in the evolutionary history.
Perhaps, it is designed to be the bestguarantee of Survival of the Fittest in human species by addinganother dimension ( exploring new combinatorial syntax, outside of instinctive pathway , through semantic reasoning) to the Natural Selection Process.
ImposingRules and Regulations on this would then be the unnatural act, and LIMIT the avenues of evolution.
Lest you forget, the Orderis guaranteed by the automatic self-correction mode of the standard Gaia Model of combinatorial "life" cycles, which maintains the equilibrium of resource utilisation.
Therein lies the rub.
The choiceto Abort is what defines the Freedom of an Individual to effect anotherpathway for Natural Selection to continue.
It is in the unpredictability of that choice, coupled with the known model of resource equilibrium, that would allow for newer facets of Evolutionary recombinations.
On the other hand, it is individual Self-reflection - added to the Collective self-reflection ( that would discourageimpulsive decisions on such a choice) that would allow an individual to carefully decide the consequences of either choice in the decision node.
Does that work for you ? :)
heh, says the guy who still believes in the fairy tale of christianity
I haven't said anything about Christianity. Your God, science, which is just man, says the child suffers.
The choiceto Abort is what defines the Freedom of an Individual to effect anotherpathway for Natural Selection to continue.
The freedom of the unborn child is compromised. Natural selection would be to let the process go forward. Human intervention isn't natural selection, moron.
Very logical. Very scientific. Very productive. :)
And whydo you want to productivein society in the first place ?
What do you produce?
Chortle.
So you don'thave the answer, right ?
Lest you forget, this "conscience" nonsense is not an objectivecriterion, and hence unscientificand illogical. Thus it is inadmissible for the purpose of a logical debate.
Define "Information" scientifically.
Here is a pointer for your benefit : http://www.free-definition.com/Information.html#Information_as_negative_entropy
It will clarify the cloud of lower intestinal gaseous discharge that fogs your brain currently.
Â
In
jethro bodine 7/29/04 8:16am
, you have missed the following definition of Logic :
[ The relationshipbetween elementsand between anelement and thewhole in a set of
objects, individuals, principles, or
events.]
Where does "life" figure in it ?
In your own admission, there is no need for human existence.
The rest of your argument is therefore specious and dispensable.
Thanks for playing.
I haven't said anything about Christianity. Your God, science, which is just man, says the child suffers.
heh, missing the point, as always
The unborn child is entirelydependent on the Amniotic fluid, the Placental Osmosis and Umbilical Cord for "life".
If the pregnant woman dies, the unborn child only has as much time to live as the nutrient and oxygen content of the ( unreplenished ) Amniotic sac would allow.
It therefore has nofreedom .
You forgot what you once admitted,- Humans area partof Nature.
Human intervention merely adds one moredimension to NaturalSelection.
Just as intervention by bacteria, virus or predators do.
Go figure.
If there was no human life then the data used to inform could not be gathered.Â
tell that to the next blind person with a seeing eye dog you come across.
Very logical. Very scientific. Very productive. :)
Your religion is your science. You have blind faith in it.
And whydo you want to productivein society in the first place ?
What a moronic question. Do you think such question make you look intelligent? They don't.
Chortle.
That just might be funny to someone withouy a conscience.
So you don'thave the answer, right ? I have the answer. Just because it is one you don't like doesn't mean that it isn't an answer. You are full of yourself, dude.
Lest you forget, this "conscience" nonsense is not an objectivecriterion, and hence unscientificand illogicall. Thus it is inadmissible for the purpose of a logical debate. Like I said science is your religion. And you irrationally cling to it even when you don't understand it.
Define "Information" scientifically.Â
I can't be sure what it is you mean. Open a damn dictionary and read it.
It will clarify the cloud of lower intestinal gaseous discharge that fogs your brain currently. I get it, your believe
you are superior? But it is clear you have an inferiority complex.
Â
In
jethro bodine 7/29/04 8:16am
, you have missed the following definition of Logic :
[ The relationshipbetween elementsand between anelement and thewhole in a set of
objects, individuals, principles, or
events.]
Where does "life" figure in it ? It takes someone to observe it, stupid shit. It is something people observe.
In your own admission, there is no need for human existence.
Then do the world a favor and kill yourself.
The rest of your argument is therefore specious and dispensable. You don't think. You will disregard anything that conflicts with your own religious dogma. You do not consider any alternatives.
If there was no human life then the data used to inform could not be gathered.Â
tell that to the next blind person with a seeing eye dog you come across.
Smart one, ares! Not surprising you miss the point. You usually do.  Dogs are alive and are able to observe. But their abilities to gather and. manipulate the data is limited. Now apply the concept to a rock.
 haven't said anything about Christianity. Your God, science, which is just man, says the child suffers.
heh, missing the point, as always
Since you have made no comprehensible point, of course it was missed. You, Demon, are an inarticulate fool.
ya know jethro, you never did respond to the question i posed above. if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make noise?
The unborn child is entirelydependent on the Amniotic fluid, the Placental Osmosis and Umbilical Cord for "life".
We are all dependent on something. You are dependent on air and water.
If the pregnant woman dies, the unborn child only has as much time to live as the nutrient and oxygen content of the ( unreplenished ) Amniotic sac would allow. So what? If you are deprived of air or water you will die.
It therefore has nofreedom. Â
The child has life, like you and you aren't free from the need of water, food and air. There for under in your twisted mind you would have no freedom.
You forgot what you once admitted,- Humans area partof Nature.
A part of nature but not nature itself. You need to look up the definition of natural selection because, again you are proving that you do not understand what it is you are referring to. Natural selection means that that those entities that have characteristics that help them to become adapted to their environment tend to leave more offspring than those less able to adapt. Abortion when applied can defeat natural selection. Because the most fit may kill their offspring leaving room for the less fit.Â
Human intervention merely adds one moredimension to NaturalSelection. Again you need to read up on what natural selection means. But of course, you won't.
Go figure. What I figure is that you need an education.
ya know jethro, you never did respond to the question i posed above. if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make noise?
I did with when I posted the definition of logic. I admit it was a direct answer. And I know I expected to much from you to glean the response. If there is no living entity around to hear it then there is no noise as that word is understood. There would be pressure waves but unless there is something to detect them it is irrelevant. The word logic refers to man's ability to reason. There is no logic without man. What ever nature does, therefore, has nothing to do with logic.
hello,
Mr Spock 7/29/04 9:22am
Detaching from instinct and making deliberate choices is also a natural process in the evolutionary history.
Sure! it is the nature-given power to man's free-spirit- away from the mechanistic-perpetual-oscillatory universe.
Imposing Rules and Regulations on this would then be the unnatural act, and LIMIT the avenues of evolution
it should be the otherway around! Rules and Regulations are "natural"!The ORDER in the animal world is NOT a problem, they have an innate sense of order and fairness. u cant find a serial rapist lion can u?? nature takes care of preservation of order there.
man is a different cup of tea, the instincts thru which Nature establishes order is NOT enough since man goes beyond them. hence the need for external RULES, that are in tune with Natures laws, we call "Universal Morality", It is NOT christian nor is it Hindu-Buddhist!!!
Lest you forget, the Order is guaranteed by the automatic self-correction mode of the standard Gaia Model of combinatorial "life" cycles, which maintains the equilibrium of resource utilisation.
Nothing is guaranteed. if some luny american decides to test a few nuke arsenals, what resources are left...for whom??!!!
it is individual Self-reflection - added to the Collective self-reflection ( that would discourage impulsive decisions on such a choice) that would allow an individual to carefully decide the consequences of either choice in the decision node.
Agreed! The point being that your argument comparing humans with other lower animals or cancerous tissue is NOT tenable.
Ah, the beauty of pseudo intelligence.
Does lightning dependon someone to "observe" which pole is the highest , and then discharge itself ?
Does a river dependon someone to "observe" which geographical formation is the weak spot, and then create an Oxbow Lake ?
Or is there an inbuilt computationallogic ( sincethere is this condition, therefore... ) that determines the sequence of events in these phenomena ?
I
provided you with the "damn" definition of "Information" : http://www.free-definition.com/Information.html#Information_as_negative_entropy.
Did that rattle your knees, or are you too dense to comprehendwhat it means ?
I am willingto entertain any logicalreposte.
Thus far, you have been prancing around with vacuous and vague cliches like "it matters to most people" kind of nonsensical statements.
But noton someone.
Comprende, amigo ?
Certainly.
Which is why our "freedom" is only restricted to an environment with Temperature range between 50 Celsius and -50 Celsius, abundant Oxygen and drinking water.
But, thankfully, there is NO oneperson that can controlthat environment, and hence my destiny.
On the other hand, a woman is oneperson that can control the destiny and has the choiceto either sustain or terminate that environment for the unborn multicellular tissue.
Chortle.
Nature is the sumof its parts.
Natural Selection , therefore, works by the synergy of action of its parts.
It is notthe amountof replication that is called Natural Selection, but a successful replication that sustains itself.
Elimination of unwantedfoetus gives more probability ( less competition )  for the wantedfoetus to survive and sustain itself in the limited-resource equilibrium.
Go figure.
Â
Slight correction.
It is a probabilisticfluctuation,- the dynamic interaction of energy fields.
Only the Cosmologicallaws that govern the manifest universe,- Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics etc.
Even under such laws, there are several degrees of freedom at the subatomic level.
Any rules that CURTAIL the freedom ( principle of uncertainty ) is unnatural. :)
The orderin the animal world is a dynamic one, constantly seeking newer equilibrium with the introduction and extinction of new species.
Introduction of Periplaneta Americana in Asia, and the hunting extinction of Acinonyx jubatus venaticus from South Asia have dynamically resulted in the creation of a newer equilibrium and order.
To talk of "order" as natural is untenable. We can only talk of a dynamic equilibrium.
What is technicallycalled equilibrium is commonly called "fairness" of the animal world.
A lion has evolved to battle it out with the Protector Alpha Male of a Pride and take control of the ENTIRE harem, if successful.
You can very well see a "serial" rapist, or an opportune adulterer, among some Primate species, and lewd genital exhibitionism among male Capuchin Monkeys.
You think humans are any special ? :)
All the resources are left for the nextsequence of active recombination of molecules, NOT NECESSARILY hydrocarbon.
There is no flaw in the comparison.
As long as "life" is just a non-semantic molecular permutation and combination, "human" life is as meaningless or valueless as that of a cancerous tissue or "lower" animals.
Does lightning dependon someone to "observe" which pole is the highest , and then discharge itself ? No but to compare or relate it to something else you have to have an observer. You can take a sentence out of context but it does not prove anything other than your dishonesty.
Does a river dependon someone to "observe" which geographical formation is the weak spot, and then create an Oxbow Lake ? Again you are being dishonest.
Or is there an inbuilt computationallogic ( sincethere is this condition, therefore... ) that determines the sequence of events in these phenomena ? No logic is reason. Inanimate objects don't can't reason. Simply because you can obfuscate, even if you were doing it intentionally does not mean you are intelligent.
Did that rattle your knees, or are you too dense to comprehendwhat it means ? I comprehend you quite well. You are insecure little twit trying to prove your not stupid.
I am willingto entertain any logicalreposte. No you are not. You can't think outside of the box you put yourself in.
Thus far, you have been prancing around with vacuous and vague cliches like "it matters to most people" kind of nonsensical statements. They make perfect sense.
But noton someone.
Oh yes you are. Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Build your own shelter? Just about everyone is dependent on someone else. You were certainly dependent on your mother, my guess is that you still are, maybe like Norman Bates. Poor woman she must be ashamed of you.
Comprende, amigo ?
You do live in your own little world don't you? Once you get out from under Mom's roof, upi'll be better off.
But, thankfully, there is NO oneperson that can controlthat environment, and hence my destiny.
People certainly can control you and your destiny. People have been controlled thoughout history. You are being controlled by your mother or your mental disorder.
On the other hand, a woman is oneperson that can control the destiny and has the choiceto either sustain or terminate that environment for the unborn multicellular tissue.
Your point is what?  People have a choice in lots say whether to have peas or green beans with dinner. They also have a choice to do things like murder, rape and pillage. Just because someone has a choice is meaningless.Â
Chortle.
That is certainly a logical response.
Natural Selection , therefore, works by the synergy of action of its parts. Look up natural selection, junior.
It is notthe amountof replication that is called Natural Selection, but a successful replication that sustains itself.
Abortion ends that sucessful selection. Therefore, abortion is at odds with natural selection.
Elimination of unwantedfoetus gives more probability ( less competition )  for the wantedfoetus to survive and sustain itself in the limited-resource equilibrium.
No abortion destroys naturally selected offspring. It interferes with nature.
Go figure.
Apparently you can't.Â
what's your stance on stem cell research, god boy?
The words of a very sick fellow:
They canmeasure, and computational logicis based onmeasurement of "conditions".
"Observer" is redundant in this scenario.
That's their choice.
I have the freedom to, and thus cangrow my own food, or hunt/gather it.
I have the freedom to, and thus canspin my own yarn and stitch my own clothes.
I have the freedom to, and thus canbuild my own thatched hut or brick shelter.
But I choosenot to.
Quite unlike a foetus, which is fullydependent on oneperson, and doesn'thave the freedom or choice to be otherwise.
That's why it isdependent, and it is the choiceof the woman to sustain or abort it.
Only if youlet them to.
The foetus has nosuch option.
Don't be that dense.
The woman hasthe choice to sustain or abort the foetus. Whether she acts upon it is herprerogative.
The foetus has nosuch choice. That's the differencebetween independence and dependence.
Comprende amigo ?
You didn't understand the concept.
In this case, the mother doesn'twant the foetus. It is doomed from the view of Natural Selection, - just like a Snake often eats its own offspring.
Human intervention ( Abortion ) is also a naturalintervention, adding one more dimension to Natural Selection.
By eliminating competition ( unwanted foetus )Â through PlannedParenthood, Natural Selection is actually helping the wanted/plannedchild to sustain itself in the fight for limited resources.
Go figure.
They canmeasure, and computational logicis based onmeasurement of "conditions".
You are daft man. Again you are misusing terms.
"Observer" is redundant in this scenario.
Only if you don't know what you are talking about.
That's their choice.
What does that have to do with dependence?
I have the freedom to, and thus cangrow my own food, or hunt/gather it. You could try. But then you wouldn't be free to do what you are doing now.
I have the freedom to, and thus canspin my own yarn and stitch my own clothes. Again that would take time away from what you are doing now. You fool yourself if you think you are truly free.
But I choosenot to. You "choose" not to because you can't.
Quite unlike a foetus, which is fullydependent on oneperson, and doesn'thave the freedom or choice to be otherwise. Lacking freedom or choice is not a logical reason to kill. It is simply a rationalization.
That's why it isdependent, and it is the choiceof the woman to sustain or abort it. You really think that is logic? As demon would say that is a fallacy. The result is not supported by the premise
Only if youlet them to.
The Iraqi people just let Saddam control them. The same with Hitler and Stalin.
The foetus has nosuch option. Having an option or a choice is irrelevant to anything. A newborn doesn't have options either.
Don't be that dense.
Dense? What the hell are you talking about? Your brain must be fogged by the purple haze.
The woman hasthe choice to sustain or abort the foetus. Whether she acts upon it is herprerogative.
Under the law. But the law is not supported by morality. The only thing that you seem to offer is that you think it is right to abort.
The foetus has nosuch choice. That's the differencebetween independence and dependence.
An irrelevant difference.
Comprende amigo ?
I understand that you have nothing to offer except that it is what you want. You have no logic to support abortion.
You didn't understand the concept.
It is you that doesn't understand.
In this case, the mother doesn'twant the foetus. It is doomed from the view of Natural Selection, - just like a Snake often eats its own offspring.
No it isn't doomed. There are a hell of lot of people walking around that prove you wrong.
Human intervention ( Abortion ) is also a naturalintervention, adding one more dimension to Natural Selection. It isn't "natural" and you saying so doesn't change that. Abortion is at odds with natural selection. But it is clear in your world black is white if you say it is.
By eliminating competition ( unwanted foetus )Â through PlannedParenthood, Natural Selection is actually helping the wanted/plannedchild to sustain itself in the fight for limited resources. Again it isn't natural selection. Natural selection would be allowing them all to live and those that get their share through strength or cunning would survive. The fact is abortion can kill the fittest of the species.
oh BTW, spock, how old are you, 17?
Do I needto do what I am doing right now ? No.
So, your contention is irelevant.
CanI grow my own food ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
CanI stitch my own clothes ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
CanI build my own shelter ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
Correct your misperceptions first.
Nobodyis suggesting that all women kill allunborn foetus.
The question is whether awoman has the logicalright to terminate an
unwantedfoetus.
Since the unwanted foetus has nofreedom - being totally dependent on the Amniotic Sac -Â and the womanisin a position to sustain or terminate it, the choiceis logically hers.
Kapisch ?
Yes they did
.
Just like monarchies of yore.
The survivalinstinct of the weak ( subjects ) call for the Flight Syndrome, letting the Alpha Male set the rules. Case: Quisling of Norway under Hitler's threat.
Those that don't like being controlled go for the Fight Response, and get killed. Like the Shias after the First Gulf War under Saddam's regime.
Many a newbornhas been found alive, dumped in garbage vats.
Apparently, they DO have options once their Placental connections are severed , and they can breathe in the atmosphere.
Unlike an unbornFoetus.
Morality is a collective abstraction with noabsolute basis.
Good and bad are relative terms, and they merely vary in degree not in kind.
What is good for you ( low cost at consumer end ) may actually be badto another ( price depression at producer end ).
Moreover the entire edifice of Morality assumesthe need to live ( which has been proved to be illogical ) ,  and thus an accompanying carrot-stick policy to enforce it.
Hence, it is irrelevant and inadmissible in a logical discussion.
You sorely miss the point.
An unwantedfoetus is doomed. Why else do you think dead newborns are found in garbage vats, or in marshlands ?
Wanted children are notdoomed. It is they that are walking around.
In the wild, turtle eggs and alligator eggs hatch in hundreds, but onlya few make it back to the open waters.
Allowing them ALL to live is notthe decision of Nature.
MOST of them are terminated even BEFORE strength and cunning have developed in the individuals.
But that TOO is just one dimension of Natural Selection.
Abortion is another,- one that helps eliminate competition.
Fitness is in survival against the will of the remainder of Nature.
The symbiote foetus that is aborted did notqualify the criterion of "want" of the immediate carrier.
It is unfit, and is eliminated.
No problems anywhere. Except in that little book called the Bible.
CanI grow my own food ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
I doubt if you could.
CanI stitch my own clothes ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
I doubt if you could.
CanI build my own shelter ? Yes. But I choosenot to, because I dohave an alternative and the freedomto choose.
I doubt if you could. You have freedom not to do all of the above things because someone else is doing them for you.
Correct your misperceptions first.
My misperceptions? I don't have any.
Nobodyis suggesting that all women kill allunborn foetus.
It doesn't matter if one does or they all do. It doesn't change what it is that is being done.
The question is whether awoman has the logicalright to terminate an
unwantedfoetus. There is nothing logical about abortion except maybe when the woman's life is in imminent danger. But even then it is often made, and understandably so, based on self interest.
Since the unwanted foetus has nofreedom - being totally dependent on the Amniotic Sac -Â and the womanisin a position to sustain or terminate it, the choiceis logically hers. Freedom or lack of freedom is irrelevant. It makes no logical sense to butcher the baby because some whacked out idea of what freedom is. Freedom is something that is always weighed against the interests of society. Do you
kapisch ?
Yes they did
.
You are a fool.
Many a newbornhas been found alive, dumped in garbage vats.
Yes by
chance. But what does that have to do with choice or freedom? Nothing.
Apparently, they DO have options once their Placental connections are severed , and they can breathe in the atmosphere. Unlike an unbornFoetus. Yeah they have the choice to get out of the dumpster. What idiocy! The child should have the option to live before it is born with the mother having a choice to violate the law by obtaining an abortion.
Morality is a collective abstraction with noabsolute basis.
There are certain actions that are absolutely right and some that are absolutely wrong. You put to much stock in science. You know it is being revised all the time, don't you?
Moreover the entire edifice of Morality assumesthe need to live ( which has been proved to be illogical ) ,  and thus an accompanying carrot-stick policy to enforce it. There is a desire to live. Carrot stick policy?
Hence, it is irrelevant and inadmissible in a logical discussion. You don't know what logical is. You think rocks have logic. This board isn't just about what YOU think is logical or relevant. This board isn't here for you to limit the scope of ideas.
You sorely miss the point.
I know that your point is absurd.
An unwantedfoetus is doomed. You make an assumption that has been proven wrong over and over again. Why else do you think dead newborns are found in garbage vats, or in marshlands ?
But not all unwanted newborns meet that end. Many are put up for adoption.
Wanted children are notdoomed. Some are. You may have been wanted, spock, but you were doomed.It is they that are walking around. Unwanted children are walking around to and many are living very happy and productive lives.
In the wild, turtle eggs and alligator eggs hatch in hundreds, but onlya few make it back to the open waters.
So?
Abortion is another,- one that helps eliminate competition. Abortion may kill the fittest. But it isn't done to eliminate any competition.
Fitness is in survival against the will of the remainder of Nature. No it isn't. Some of nature may want it to live
The symbiote foetus that is aborted did notqualify the criterion of "want" of the immediate carrier. The desire or lack of it may have nothing to do with logic.
It is unfit, and is eliminated. You don't know it is unfit. The mother may be unfit and maybe the mother should be eliminated but do we allow that?
No problems anywhere. Except in that little book called the Bible. You are the only one bringing up the Bible. You won't find a whole lot about abortion in there. But you will find something about compassion. But you wouldn't comprehend that.
But not all unwanted newborns meet that end. Many are put up for adoption.
if such a child is adopted it isn't exactly unwanted now is it?