"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Moonwood the Hare]

sorry I lost the post I was making and have to go now

[Rian]

I almost made it onto Wheel of Fortune once - I passed all the preliminaries, and got onto the mock game part of the tryouts, then I got shy and didn't get further (they like more outgoing people).

I made it to the game room and couldn't answer the puzzles. They are much much harder than the game itself (sometimes 3,4 letter words. Harder to figure out, and the time limit was very challenging.)

Easy to win big money on it though-- people don't spin with any strategy but it's easy to figure out how to maximize big win $$ and minimize bankrupts.

Anyway, I thjink this should adequately kill this topic for now.

Nope - it gives a little break, a little breather, a little reset, a time to take a bit of a breath and refocus, a time to connect to the other people here in different little ways as we try to talk the bigger things out. I think it's a good thing to do for the health of the thread, as long as it stays short.

yes, the puzzles were definitely harder, but for some reason, I'm good at it and did very well. And they definitely did NOT give us much time! And what I like about the game is that everyone that wins money takes it home, not just the big winner. Nice to know that you tried out too - I like connecting with people, and I think it's nice to find little things in common.

[gary_s]

Yes, of course it is ok to do it. What defines humans is not our tissues -- all living beings are "proto" themselves, and even my fingernails contain "proto human tissue" in DNA. As noted, every time I clip my nails, I destroy countless "protohumans" that are now denied life via the wonderful science of in vitro fertilization (methodology should not matter, should it? Why should it? They are still protohumans regardless of the mechanics involved in getting them to be fully human).

I do not agree with your assessment of DNA because it's simply wrong. DNA by itself can never develop into a full human being. DNA is not a proto-human being; it is an instruction set for building a human being. Without the specialized cells (egg and sperm) to combine and unleash the construction of a new human, DNA will never develop into anything. And that's true for eggs and sperm on their own as well. Unless aided by cloning technology, which not a natural process, no egg or sperm cell can alone create a new animal. It is not realistic to suggest that we should or even could preserve every human cell for reproduction through cloning technology, which is far from fool proof. And your nails would be useless for in-vitro fertilization technology which requires viable human eggs and sperm. So, you nails will never be of use for reproduction and it is silly in the extreme to suggest that they will.

Once fertilization has taken place, a new proto-human has been created. This proto-human is not the same as the instruction sheet (DNA) that helped to construct it any more than a building is the same as the blue prints used to construct it. Arguing that it is could be construed as a philosophical debate, but on any practical level there is simply no argument at all. Human DNA cannot alone give rise to new humans and human cells other than eggs and sperm cannot do so either. This is a matter of fact, not debate, so there's no practical equivalence between such cells and a human embryo.

One reason that DNA and human cells are not proto-humans is human consciousness. DNA and cells do not posses this. Consciousness is a property that emerges only from a fully formed human being, or at least a human gestating into full form. We don't know precisely when consciousness emerges in human development. To me, this is the definitive test of a human being. A zygote does not posses a consciousness. It can't because it does not posses a fully functioning brain. A brain dead human also no longer posses a consciousness. I see no ethical or practical issue with ending the growth or life of either of these. The only real difference here is that a zygote, if left undisturbed, may very well develop into a full human.

What defines us as humans? Our brains. That is what is different from all the other beings out there-- we are far and away vastly more sapient and sentient than any other known creature on this planet, and as such have developed to a high degree things like empathy, comparison, altruism, emotions, etc.

Well, I'm afraid you are wrong about this. Do some reading on apes and I think you'll find that you no longer hold to this definition. In fact, the more you research, the more you will be amazed at just how little difference there is between the capacity of the human brain and many other species roaming the earth. If anything sets humans apart from other species, it is our mastery of knowledge. This isn't to say that other species don't pass down knowledge; they do. But none to the extent that humans have done.

This is demonstrable, and so when a human brain is developed to the point of being capable of sapience and sentience, that is the most reasonable place for cut off. Coupled with this should be the development of the fetus to be able to feel pain. Unconscious, unaware, unfeeling protohumans are completely detached from any kind of experience whatsoever, and thus can be terminated with no moral, scientific, or moral violations. They are merely more complicated versions of the cells in my skin.

I agree with this. But this is where many Americans evoke the "potential" clause. If these growing proto-humans have the potential to develop into full human beings, then they should not be terminated, so the argument goes. And I can't totally dismiss that logic; there's some elegance to it. Certainly a fertilized human egg has the potential to become a full human being, but it has not yet, so I can't value it in the same way. And there's precedence here. When a couple loses a pregnancy to miscarriage, they are usually upset, emotional and disappointed, but the typical mourning period and ritual is never the same as if they lost a child. Certainly they are unhappy, but there is no personal connection with this unborn child, so the loss is not as great. I hope I'm not coming across as callous on this matter; that's not my intention. I'm just pointing out that the loss of a person is far worse than the loss of a fetus and that must say something of how we value each. If a town drunk dies and a beloved town leader dies the same day, it is the town leader who will get a big wake and a long parade of vehicles to his funeral, not the drunk. People will feel the leader's loss much more because they valued that person more. So, our valuation of human life clearly doesn't rest solely on whether a creature has a functioning brain or not; it's more complex than that. And I see a tendency of the religious to view the matter of abortion as a black/white issue, especially Catholics, who go to the extreme. A black/white issue takes the pressure off decision makers. I see this issue as for more complex and continuous, not discrete.

You don't qualify as a quisling because you have come down on the side of the reasonable conclusion, and to be a quisling you would have to adopt the position of the theist who would advocate for their position. You don't, so the label doesn't apply to you, does it?

Well, not me personally, perhaps, but I do know quite a few atheists/agnostics who abhor and protest abortion for reasons that I have pointed out in this thread. I don't consider then any more unthinking that myself even if I don't agree with them.

No, of course it's not. As it happens, I've experienced this via a pregnant woman who was also deeply involved with drugs. Having such a child would have been disastrous, and the abortion was extremely early on -- within a few days of her missing her period. It was not a pleasant experience, but if disallowed, it might have been vastly worse, with a child severely hampered by parents not responsible enough to handle a baby (that was a guarantee), and very possibly injured by the drugs themselves. Of course, we can spin endless speculations about how it might have gone right, and so on, but the fact is, neither she nor I were ready and it was better not to have children at that time.

This is one of the best arguments for why abortion should remain an option. Of course, the theist argument is going to be "don't punish the baby for your mistake; allow someone to adopt it". And against this argument, I've got little defense. They have a very good point here. There are lots of people who want babies and can't have them. And if a pregnant woman has no desire to become a mother, then it's not a bad argument at all. But it's still her choice at this point in time.

furthermore, many years later my wife experienced a fairly late term miscarriage, and we lost a 5 month old baby. There was clearly vastly more damage done to that 5 month old fetus than to the 5 week old year previous, but we all know after a certain degree of condolences, everyone shrugs at the miscarriage because that was "natural", but the abortion was... what? Unnatural? "Artificial"? So what?

I'm sorry to hear about that. The reason people find "abortion" distasteful is because it is a human taking intentional action to end the life of an unborn fetus. It doesn't make it any less painful that a miscarriage is "natural", but it certainly wasn't intentional.

That is simply not true. Reproductive cloning in the use of an adult cell's DNA into an egg with the result being a clone of the adult donor. While today it may be a rare occurrence, the technology exists, and that means all human cells are protohumans regardless of your desire to argue they aren't. In fact, through history human cells have always been protohumans even if we didn't know about it. Your argument is a biological version of the "Did gravity exist before humans codified it?" rhetoric. Yeah it existed, even if we hadn't figured it out yet. Same with human cells, regardless of some specious "chance" it might have to become human. The same can be applied to sperm cells-- millions of them trying for the egg, only one succeeding. Do we negate the sperm as reproductive vehicles because there's a low chance-- nearly zero in fact -- of any one sperm making it to the egg?

The only way you can get away with defining any random human cell as a "proto-human" is if you equate Proto-Human with the genetic code for a human being. Personally, I find this definition to be ridiculous. Is a lump of bauxite a proto-car? Is an acorn a proto-desk? Is a grain of sand a proto-Hubble Space Telescope? Of course not. For the sake of this discussion, I would define a proto-human as a fertilized human egg and nothing less. From the moment fertilization occurs, the cells know what to do to become a fully functioning human being; no outside intervention is necessary. At any point before, they would require the help of human technology, which is not a natural process, meaning that it would never happen on its own. What you are describing is human genetic material and even though the map of a human being exists within every human cell, that material will never develop into a new human being without a proper conduit. Cloning technology, even though it would be able to use DNA from any cell, is nothing more than a synthetic proxy for the natural process. So, if you insist on holding on to your definition of "proto-human", then I'll just abandon its use and use embryo instead.

In-vitro fertilization requires numerous passes of fertilized eggs to be implanted. Without getting into specific numbers too deeply, let's say there's a 1-10 ration; for every 10 fertilized eggs, only 1 will "work". Well, the other 9 are now useless for anything else. They aren't conscious. They have no brains. They cannot feel anything. That are blobs of tissue. These we must "protect" under theistic morality with the same rights as human being out of the womb.

There is no scientific, medical or even moral argument as to having to do this, except "Because I think god says so". Well, "I think god says so" is the true polarizing fallaciousness, and I'm not at all afraid to point that out. The fallacious argument, as you apply it to me, is in response to a completely ludicrous polarizing and destructive argument posed by "them".

No, I'm not supporting this ban on unwanted embryos at all. You must have misunderstood. But, given their theistic logic, I can see the point made by anti-abortionists. They simply cannot ignore this because there's essentially no difference in their framework between an implanted and a frozen embryo.

Well, you're engaging in group-think right here. Why should they not be permitted to do precisely this by your argumentation? Are they not free to endorse their morality even within their professions? My morals and integrity are deeply woven into my job, why not theirs? Your position is polarizing, isn't it?

My opinion isn't based on any "group" telling me what to think; it's based on my own consideration of the issue. And I thought the answer to your question would be pretty clear. As I said before, legal activities are protected for citizens. If you can't accept selling Plan-B to women, then don't become a pharmacist. If you are an OBGYN, you will occasionally have to end an ectopic pregnancy for a woman. By the strict definition of many theists, this puts them at odds with their morality, so I say you shouldn't become an OBGYN if you can't accept this. It's not a question of someone abiding by their morals to do their job; it's a question of putting your morals ahead of another person's rights. And by extension, we are all part and parcel responsible for the world we live in. If people start this parsing of their responsibilities, then we should all just lay down and refuse to go to work because just about everything in our intricate web of civilization contributes to just about everything else to some degree. If I write computer code, then I'm sure in some miniscule way my efforts contribute to the killing of a Pakistani house wife in a drone strike, whether I like it or not.

Here's the thing. It is polarizing. So what? What are we afraid of? Polarization? Well, you got it anyway. When your president has to kow-tow to religion else guarantee he's not elected, you're polarized. When science is shackled, creationism forced into schools, and "Christian morals" must be held sacrosanct, you are in a fallacious and polarized model by definition.

The problem with polarizing a topic is that you inevitably demonize your opponent in the process. As I alluded to earlier, almost no issue is truly discrete (black or white). There is almost always a continuous nature to any disagreement, but people tend to draw a line in the sand and say, "it stops here". That's OK, but as time goes and both sides become entrenched, that line gets wider and wider through the use of rhetoric and ideology, neither of which serve to better understand the issue, but rather serve to gather more support for their side. Consider abortion. After Roe V. Wade the battle truly began and opponents began to promote their position. What sells an idea better, a well thought out and practical discussion of the topic or an extreme, contorted version that amplifies any distasteful elements?

What do you plan to do about it?

What do I plan to do about what?

[Moonwood the Hare]

I find myself agreeing with Gary that the issues here are complex and not black and white. I say this as someone who has been involved with the pro-life movement and who has had to rethink some aspects of my position. I can see very good reasons for not saying a zygote has the same rights as an adult human being so somewhere between zygote and adult a line has to be drawn legally and ethically. I have trouble with the idea of the reasoning power of the brain being used to draw the line between human and not human because I have worked with people where you would say the capacity for reason was lower than that of some non-human species and I would still see these as people with rights. I also think KTR you are underestimating the effect the loss of an unborn child can have on its parents, especially the mother; only the other day I was talking to a counselling student who hoped to specialise in this area. I have mentioned before Buber's concept of I-thou relationships and I think many mothers do have an I-thou relationship with their unborn children; this does not prove they are persons any more than a child's I-thou relationship with a doll makes that in itself a person. I think part of our identity as humans is relational, that is the aspects of our being that are culturally acquired that arise from our relatedness to other humans are part of what constitutes us as human. As with all other defining features of the human this exists in other species but I think part of our humanness derives from the fact that we are evolved primates with this strong social aspect rather than if we were evolved and intelligent something else. But this does give grounds for accepting the profoundly mentally handicapped as human where looking purely at reasoning power would not.

[Keep The Reason]

I do not agree with your assessment of DNA because it's simply wrong. DNA by itself can never develop into a full human being.

This is semantics. "By itself"? Well, "by itself" neither can an egg or a sperm, but they are still proto-human given certain conditions.

Once fertilization has taken place, a new proto-human has been created. This proto-human is not the same as the instruction sheet (DNA) that helped to construct it any more than a building is the same as the blue prints used to construct it. Arguing that it is could be construed as a philosophical debate, but on any practical level there is simply no argument at all. Human DNA cannot alone give rise to new humans and human cells other than eggs and sperm cannot do so either. This is a matter of fact, not debate, so there's no practical equivalence between such cells and a human embryo.

Why should this matter? You're deciding that the mechanism of fertilzation changes the game, and there is no reason to objectively insist this matters. Sperm is alive, ova are alive. So are doctors injecting one into the other. The logic is applicable, you're just choosing a different line in the sand to define what is proto-human. "proto" means before. Taken all the way down the line, "proto" extends logically to even atoms.

Herein lies the key to the debate-- the idea of "proto" is an arbitrary line; even base chemicals are, in that sense, "proto" -- they are just very very early in the the line leading up to humanity. Therefore, other than this arbitrary line one can decide based upon opinion, there is no medical or logical reason to oppose abortion -- until it becomes evident that specific human-ness is in play. Then it becomes an ethical issue, which is where we reach for delimiters such as our brain development, our ability to feel pain, and lastly, our consciousness. While religious people insist there is a moral reason to oppose abortion on theological grounds, they are required to support and demonstrate the theological proof for this (they cannot).

And this whole discussion opens such a can of worms. Here's a woman who is pregnant and doesn't know it. She has a few drinks, and slips and falls. She miscarries, killing the "proto-human" within her. What is her responsibility? What if she falls down purposely to try to miscarry? You know of ways to enforce any of this? Hell, even the bible noted that nothing untoward was meant towards the woman unless "the quickening" had happened (stirring of the baby felt by the woman). Of course, all unenforceable, and so it's just a poor argument at best from both a theistic and secular side.

One reason that DNA and human cells are not proto-humans is human consciousness. DNA and cells do not posses this. Consciousness is a property that emerges only from a fully formed human being, or at least a human gestating into full form. We don't know precisely when consciousness emerges in human development. To me, this is the definitive test of a human being. A zygote does not posses a consciousness. It can't because it does not posses a fully functioning brain. A brain dead human also no longer posses a consciousness. I see no ethical or practical issue with ending the growth or life of either of these. The only real difference here is that a zygote, if left undisturbed, may very well develop into a full human.

What defines us as humans? Our brains. That is what is different from all the other beings out there-- we are far and away vastly more sapient and sentient than any other known creature on this planet, and as such have developed to a high degree things like empathy, comparison, altruism, emotions, etc.

Well, I'm afraid you are wrong about this. Do some reading on apes and I think you'll find that you no longer hold to this definition. In fact, the more you research, the more you will be amazed at just how little difference there is between the capacity of the human brain and many other species roaming the earth. If anything sets humans apart from other species, it is our mastery of knowledge. This isn't to say that other species don't pass down knowledge; they do. But none to the extent that humans have done.

Come on gary-- look at my underlined highlighted sentences. I am saying exactly the same thing as you are-- what makes us human is that FAR AND WAY we are MORE sapient (wise) and sentient (feeling) and have developed to a HIGHER DEGREE than any other animal. Do you agree this is the intent of my argument? If so, please concede that your riposte is inapplicable because we are in agreement as to what makes us human.

(Note that neither of us said something like this: "It's our souls." "It's the human heart". No -- we both agree it's the BRAIN.)

This is demonstrable, and so when a human brain is developed to the point of being capable of sapience and sentience, that is the most reasonable place for cut off. Coupled with this should be the development of the fetus to be able to feel pain. Unconscious, unaware, unfeeling protohumans are completely detached from any kind of experience whatsoever, and thus can be terminated with no moral, scientific, or moral violations. They are merely more complicated versions of the cells in my skin.

I agree with this. But this is where many Americans evoke the "potential" clause. If these growing proto-humans have the potential to develop into full human beings, then they should not be terminated, so the argument goes.

It's a bad argument; see above.

And I can't totally dismiss that logic; there's some elegance to it. Certainly a fertilized human egg has the potential to become a full human being, but it has not yet, so I can't value it in the same way.

The problem is, as noted, in the word "potential". I need not re-explain it, but potential is meaningless in this context.

And there's precedence here. When a couple loses a pregnancy to miscarriage, they are usually upset, emotional and disappointed, but the typical mourning period and ritual is never the same as if they lost a child. Certainly they are unhappy, but there is no personal connection with this unborn child, so the loss is not as great. I hope I'm not coming across as callous on this matter; that's not my intention.

You're not coming across as callous, but the argument isn't very compelling anyway. They are, of course, emotional about the loss if they know about it. But what about the many misacrriages that occur and no one has any idea? In those cases, obviously there is no sense of loss-- it's usually just viewed as a heavy menstrual period by the woman and isn't anything more than an inconvenience. There are people who are relieved they misacarry because they don't want to be pregnant or parents and they don't want to have an abortion.

What moral or ethical code is to be applied to that?

I'm just pointing out that the loss of a person is far worse than the loss of a fetus and that must say something of how we value each. If a town drunk dies and a beloved town leader dies the same day, it is the town leader who will get a big wake and a long parade of vehicles to his funeral, not the drunk. People will feel the leader's loss much more because they valued that person more. So, our valuation of human life clearly doesn't rest solely on whether a creature has a functioning brain or not; it's more complex than that. And I see a tendency of the religious to view the matter of abortion as a black/white issue, especially Catholics, who go to the extreme. A black/white issue takes the pressure off decision makers. I see this issue as for more complex and continuous, not discrete.

Sure it's complicated, but it's complicated in many different directions. That's why the neutral playing grounjd needs to be invoked. If abortion, within limits, is something you are willing to proceed with, then that choice should be yours to make. If not, you can choose not to do so. But to say "I don't like X so YOU aren't allowed to do X either" -- that's a whole different kettle of fish. And while there are a small smattering of people who might make the moral argument on secualr grounds, those points are logically adressable -- as I have done here, in a thread that has nothing to do with abortion by the way.

We can disagree on the semantics you and I-- but never will we be able to disagree on the theistic grounds, wherein there is no demonstrable position whatsoever, other than "I feel this way" -- which is not compelling or acceptable. And of course, it's the theistic opposition where there is major rubber on the road. Given that practical reality, while a secularist might have a philosophical disagreement with abortion, the solution to that for the seculairst is easy: Don't have one, or participate in having one. For theists, the response is generally, "I won't have one, and I won't allow you to choose to have one either because my feelings tell me you are wrong."

Well, not me personally, perhaps, but I do know quite a few atheists/agnostics who abhor and protest abortion for reasons that I have pointed out in this thread. I don't consider then any more unthinking that myself even if I don't agree with them.

See my response directly above your statemnent for my reply to this.

This is one of the best arguments for why abortion should remain an option. Of course, the theist argument is going to be "don't punish the baby for your mistake; allow someone to adopt it". And against this argument, I've got little defense. They have a very good point here. There are lots of people who want babies and can't have them. And if a pregnant woman has no desire to become a mother, then it's not a bad argument at all. But it's still her choice at this point in time.

No, it's not, and some poeple opt for it as well. But I'm a male and am not the "incubator" -- I could not make this decisiosn for the woman in question (in fact, I was not 100% for the abortion as I personally don't like it myself); I am not in any position to insist that someone else carries our child and then gives it away. And if I, the father, am not in that position-- then who are these moralists to make that decision for others as well?

The only way you can get away with defining any random human cell as a "proto-human" is if you equate Proto-Human with the genetic code for a human being. Personally, I find this definition to be ridiculous. Is a lump of bauxite a proto-car? Is an acorn a proto-desk? Is a grain of sand a proto-Hubble Space Telescope? Of course not. For the sake of this discussion, I would define a proto-human as a fertilized human egg and nothing less. From the moment fertilization occurs, the cells know what to do to become a fully functioning human being; no outside intervention is necessary. At any point before, they would require the help of human technology, which is not a natural process, meaning that it would never happen on its own. What you are describing is human genetic material and even though the map of a human being exists within every human cell, that material will never develop into a new human being without a proper conduit. Cloning technology, even though it would be able to use DNA from any cell, is nothing more than a synthetic proxy for the natural process. So, if you insist on holding on to your definition of "proto-human", then I'll just abandon its use and use embryo instead.

Well, I understand that it gets pushed further and further out, but that's the problem with "potential" and "proto", isn't it? And with living tissue, so much relies on our skill and technology. While I get that you would want to limit the definition for the purposes of your argument, I say this limit is arbitrary and not possible to uphold logically. Let's call it the "Jurassic Park Paradigm". Today humans are plenty, but what if we travel elsewhere, and rather than send entire humans we send tissue to be cloned? Then human tissue even in the form of hair cells are "proto humans" aren't they? It's a matter of perspective, and that's all it is.

No, I'm not supporting this ban on unwanted embryos at all. You must have misunderstood. But, given their theistic logic, I can see the point made by anti-abortionists. They simply cannot ignore this because there's essentially no difference in their framework between an implanted and a frozen embryo.

Whoa, whoa there. Now you're arguing the theistic argument. I thought you were supporting the SECULAR argument?

We already know the Christian argument-- It's some form of "Every Abortion makes Jesus Cry" typoe of argument. Well, I reject theistic logic as undemonstrable and unteneable, so if you want to argue for it, then-- doesn't this make you a quisling?

My opinion isn't based on any "group" telling me what to think; it's based on my own consideration of the issue. And I thought the answer to your question would be pretty clear.

Same here, though I would submit both you and I come to such conclusion not in a vacuum but in the context of others experiences and opinions, hence we are in that sense based on a variety of "groups".

[qote]The problem with polarizing a topic is that you inevitably demonize your opponent in the process.[/quote]

Oh, poppycock. I'm not polarizing it-- it's already polarized long before I came on the scene and you know it. and I'm not even amplifyiung its polarization (I doubt anyone could, shy of outright war over it). And I believe people can be on one side of a polarized issue or the other without this nonsense of "demonizing" -- and if a person can't do it, then I suggest "grow the fuck up" lessons are in order.

Polarizing issues abound. On forums we address them in words, and in relaity we address them by involved, informed and committed action. Without demonizing.

Consider abortion. After Roe V. Wade the battle truly began and opponents began to promote their position. What sells an idea better, a well thought out and practical discussion of the topic or an extreme, contorted version that amplifies any distasteful elements?

We are considering it. And you assert that theists have some elegant point (which invariably comes down to them telling others how to act); which I submit to you is, by definition, a contortion of facts that amplifies the distasteful elements the moment it leaves their subjective selves and is meant to apply to anyone else. In other words, it's elegant when it applies to their choices, and obscene when they think it applies to others.

I don't force them to have abortions against their will by adopting a pro-chjoice position. However, they have no compunction removing that choice from others in adopting a their position. Even a cursory glance will show this is not an equal status between our respective options.

What do I plan to do about what?

About the shackling of science by theistic bleief systems.

[Keep The Reason]

Moonwood, I effecitvely reply to your postr in my reply to gary's.

[gary_s]

About the shackling of science by theistic bleief systems.

Oh, what am I to do about this? Well, I'm certainly not going to stand outside some building holding a picket sign. The only thing a person in my position can do is vote for candidates that do not demean science, promote scientific integrity in any capacity I can, and make sure my own progeny are scientifically literate and not part of the problem. Beyond that, there's not much else anyone can do. What I'm not going to do is lose sleep about things over which I have no control. Another thing I'm not going to do is pick unnecessary and disrespectful fights with Christians because they don't agree with my conclusions about things like abortion. You can explain yourself and your logic, but you can't make someone else change their opinion. That goes for people who mostly disagree with you as well as those who mostly agree with you. But there's one truth I've found to be nearly universal in disputes, there is always a spectrum and one far end of the spectrum can never force the other far end to change their mind. If any change does occur, it's always from the center outward.

[Rian]

I do not agree with your assessment of DNA because it's simply wrong. DNA by itself can never develop into a full human being.

This is semantics. "By itself"? Well, "by itself" neither can an egg or a sperm, but they are still proto-human given certain conditions.

It is not semantics; it's medical fact. When my husband and I decided to try to have kids, I didn't have him strategically positioned with the fingernail clippers and hope one of his nail parings would shoot up into my vagina ("ooh, baby, do it again!") In fact, if a fingernail clipping ended up in my uterus, it would be a serious medical problem. It would certainly not lead to a pregnancy.

[gary_s]

Uh...TMI?

But, yeah, exactly my point. If you want to stretch KTR's logic to it's end point, we could even say that the information making up the human genome is itself a proto-human because the technology exists to construct real human chromosomes from base chemicals and those chromosomes could be used to clone a human being. Pretty much nonsense.

[Keep The Reason]

Uh...TMI?

But, yeah, exactly my point. If you want to stretch KTR's logic to it's end point, we could even say that the information making up the human genome is itself a proto-human because the technology exists to construct real human chromosomes from base chemicals and those chromosomes could be used to clone a human being. Pretty much nonsense.

Both of you are making this claim based on the idea that some actions won't lead to prgnancy, but the fact is, interventions now DO lead to it and so that re-defines what "proto" means. It's not a stretch. It's simply a fact. Because shooting a fingernail into a woman's vagina won't work doesn't mean pulling the DNA from that same fingernail and injecting it via a different method won't work either. As a point of fact-- it will in deed work.

Your argument gary is based upon an arbitrary self-limiting of view. It is not at all "nonsense" to make the case that given the right technological skills, we might very well be able to one day take base atoms and cobble them into fully fledged human beings.

As our technology progresses, our moral and ethical standards flex and change with them. What's so hard to believe about that? Isn't it better to take the longer view as we have discovered that our technical skills have quantitiative increases? Or is it better to wait until such technology is upon us before we move to discover its implications?

Today, yeah, you can laugh at the "extreme nonsensical idea" of humans manipulating atoms to create DNA that replicates humans. Just like in 1450, doctors who were bleeding their patients would have considered the infectious nature of influenza to be demon spirits.

[Rian]

Uh...TMI?

I was a bit buzzed on Christmas cookie frosting ... but I think it was a good illustration.

But, yeah, exactly my point. If you want to stretch KTR's logic to it's end point, we could even say that the information making up the human genome is itself a proto-human because the technology exists to construct real human chromosomes from base chemicals and those chromosomes could be used to clone a human being. Pretty much nonsense.

I agree. One group of cells leads naturally and without intervention to a baby, while the other does not.

[Rian]

a little late, but I'd like to clear this up:

I took greatest issue with humanguy and Rians dismissiveness...

What dismissiveness? I asked a serious question in a respectful manner. Go back and look at it. I think humanguy brought up a good point about checking into the author, so I asked about it - respectfully and politely (I also looked into the author and read her blog for about 15 or 20 minutes, then listened to the first 10 minutes of the talk). You then dismissed my polite and on-topic post with a snide and sarcastic post. Go look at it again.

I don't expect that sort of operation from Rian, Aaron, or humanguy. They have a clear cut agenda on some things, and there's nothing I can do about it other than exposé it when I see it. And I have no obligation to be friendly about it.

What agenda do you think I have? If there's anyone with an agenda here, I'd say it's you, not me. I've always looked at this board like shooting the breeze around a campfire with a bunch of interesting people. I don't have an agenda. I'm here to learn and to enjoy people, to share my thoughts and to listen to the thoughts of others, and examine both from all sorts of angles. I guess you could call that an agenda, but I don't think that's what you're saying. What do you mean?

[JustJim]

Because shooting a fingernail into a woman's vagina won't work doesn't mean pulling the DNA from that same fingernail and injecting it via a different method won't work either. As a point of fact-- it will in deed work.

Can you provide some reference(s) that support that claim? I think it would be EXTREMELY interesting to read about how squirting (injecting) DNA into a woman's vagina will, indeed, result in pregnancy. I guess that rules out finger-f**king as a form of safe sex, huh?

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

Can you provide some reference(s) that support that claim? I think it would be EXTREMELY interesting to read about how squirting (injecting) DNA into a woman's vagina will, indeed, result in pregnancy. I guess that rules out finger-f**king as a form of safe sex, huh?

Jim

Glad I'm replying during my lunch.

Jim, one different method is just plain old sex. DNA gets squirted in via the ejaculate.

But when I said "different method", I mean in vitro fertilizaiton, which is effectively taking DNA from one tissue, putting it into an egg, and implanting the egg in the uterus.

[Moonwood the Hare]

As our technology progresses, our moral and ethical standards flex and change with them. What's so hard to believe about that? Isn't it better to take the longer view as we have discovered that our technical skills have quantitiative increases? Or is it better to wait until such technology is upon us before we move to discover its implications?

Today, yeah, you can laugh at the "extreme nonsensical idea" of humans manipulating atoms to create DNA that replicates humans. Just like in 1450, doctors who were bleeding their patients would have considered the infectious nature of influenza to be demon spirits.

It seems to me there is a huge difference between changing our ethics to fir in with technological advances that have already been made and changing our ethics to fit in with advances that may be made at some future date. So what you would need to look at is some speculations in earlier science that were used as a basis for policy and then the science was found to be mistaken. A lot of ideas about race turned out to be mistakes for example. We are so far from being able to manipulate atoms to replicate humans that we really can't base any ethical conclusions on that.