tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post7621480355594520519..comments2024-03-06T19:21:15.708-05:00Comments on RealChoice: A bright day for abortion loversChristina Duniganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04785550737493692252noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-58631882542202053002009-06-03T19:23:15.372-04:002009-06-03T19:23:15.372-04:00Funny I thought it was boring because people are i...<i>Funny I thought it was boring because people are insisting on using "scientific" definitions that don't exist and don't matter and then get defensive (rather than just move on) when shown wrong</i>.<br /><br />Well, yes, that would be what you're dancing about....Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-10030233478052778352009-06-03T19:19:32.754-04:002009-06-03T19:19:32.754-04:00"This is a stupid, boring conversation, becau..."This is a stupid, boring conversation, because you dance around more than Michael Flatly"<br /><br />Funny I thought it was boring because people are insisting on using "scientific" definitions that don't exist and don't matter and then get defensive (rather than just move on) when shown wrong. Que sera sera.<br /><br />My Michael Flatly impression is really an interpretive dance trying to communicate basic science since English has failed repeatedly.<br /><br /><br />"You ill-define the biological definition of life and organism, and then expect us all to bow to you. Sorry. That ain't happening."<br /><br />In other words you refuse to learn anything from me just because we have opposite views regarding abortion. I <i>can</i> help you develop a better understanding of biology. I've been pretty damn patient really in trying to help. But at the end of the day I can't <i>force</i> you to learn anything.<br /><br />You have total control on how inured you remain to reason.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-48186645647989622652009-06-03T19:14:01.568-04:002009-06-03T19:14:01.568-04:00"I can't believe I just read someone clai..."I can't believe I just read someone claim that a virus is more alive than an unhatched chicken...."<br /><br />And where'd you read that?Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-25081102025294587762009-06-03T09:49:49.775-04:002009-06-03T09:49:49.775-04:00Tlaloc,
I guess you missed the "potential&qu...Tlaloc,<br /><br />I guess you missed the "potential" part.<br /><br />This is a stupid, boring conversation, because you dance around more than Michael Flatly. You ill-define the biological definition of life and organism, and then expect us all to bow to you. Sorry. That ain't happening. Go find another site to troll.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118292622669944944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-70172756352020908522009-06-03T00:13:47.725-04:002009-06-03T00:13:47.725-04:00I can't believe I just read someone claim that...I can't believe I just read someone claim that a virus is more alive than an unhatched chicken....Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-16896266999075438062009-06-03T00:12:32.019-04:002009-06-03T00:12:32.019-04:00Not at all, again you are simply misunderstanding ...<i>Not at all, again you are simply misunderstanding the difference between being alive at the cellular level and at the organism level. Both things are alive but the organism has a higher order of organization (except of course for single celled organisms where the two are identical).</i><br /><br />...<br /><br />K, guys, I think we have proof that Tlaloc is a self-parody troll.<br /><br />Oh, my, that is just... wow.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-73386510753621786692009-06-02T23:58:47.701-04:002009-06-02T23:58:47.701-04:00"This scientific paper, entitled "Qualit..."This scientific paper, entitled "Quality of Life as the Realization of Life Potential: A Biological Theory of Human Being", uses the term "human being" in the following way: "Higher-level organisms, such as animals and human beings, are colonies of cells that have united to form ever more complex systems with more and more cells for the past billion years." Hmm, this would apply to a fetus...."<br /><br />Quality of life is not a biological issue. It is a psychological or sociological issue, neither of which, despite their pretensions, is a honest to goodness science.<br /><br />However if you really want to go there, the paper is about using self assessed questionnaires to determine quality of life. You can see such a questionnaire <a href="http://www.ohsu.edu/psychiatry/research/qol/qlq-irinterview.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> (pdf)<br /><br />If that's the criteria you want to use I think you should expect all fetii to fail as they are typically poor at paperwork.<br /><br /><br /><br />"And, "If we view human beings as organisms with biological potential capable of realizing themselves mentally and socially, the purpose of life is the ability to let this potential blossom and develop in an individual and ecosocial context. We may take this one step further so that the quality of life, a good life, means the ability to maximize life potential in a social and ecological<br />context." This also would apply to a fetus."<br /><br />It would? How many fetii are uh... "ecosocial" and "realize themselves mentally and socially"?<br /><br /><br /><br />"But, tlaloc, out of curiosity, how do you define a "human being"?"<br /><br />Personally I'd define it as a human organism, with some fudge room for situations like conjoined twins.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-83042163270572902072009-06-02T23:42:59.773-04:002009-06-02T23:42:59.773-04:00"You do realize you're insisting that an ..."You do realize you're insisting that an egg somehow acquires life at some point after being laid?"<br /><br />Not at all, again you are simply misunderstanding the difference between being alive at the cellular level and at the organism level. Both things are alive but the organism has a higher order of organization (except of course for single celled organisms where the two are identical).<br /><br />The chicken egg is alive at fertilization, in fact it is alive before fertilization (at a cellular level). After fertilization this living cellular material divides and specializes into tissues and organs and eventually self organizes into a new chicken.<br /><br />cheep.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-6927207837253934842009-06-02T22:38:46.410-04:002009-06-02T22:38:46.410-04:00This scientific paper, entitled "Quality of L...<a href="http://www.livskvalitet.org/cms.ashx/Videnskabelige%20Artikler/~Quality%20of%20Life/qoltheo2.pdf" rel="nofollow">This scientific paper</a>, entitled "Quality of Life as the Realization of Life Potential: A Biological Theory of Human Being", uses the term "human being" in the following way: "Higher-level organisms, such as animals and human beings, are colonies of cells that have united to form ever more complex systems with more and more cells for the past billion years." Hmm, this would apply to a fetus....<br /><br />And, "If we view human beings as organisms with biological potential capable of realizing themselves mentally and socially, the purpose of life is the ability to let this potential blossom and develop in an individual and ecosocial context. We may take this one step further so that the quality of life, a good life, means the ability to maximize life potential in a social and ecological<br />context." This also would apply to a fetus.<br /><br />But, tlaloc, out of curiosity, how do you define a "human being"?Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118292622669944944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-30565739422549930772009-06-02T22:06:17.150-04:002009-06-02T22:06:17.150-04:00or⋅gan⋅ism
–noun 1. a form of life composed of mu...<i><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=organism" rel="nofollow">or⋅gan⋅ism </a><br />–noun 1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. <br />2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran. <br />3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism</i>. <br /><br />As for:<br /><i>New cellular material, absolutely. New organism? Not even close</i><br /><br />You do realize you're insisting that an egg somehow acquires life at some point after being laid?<br /><br />Seriously, <i>listen to yourself</i>.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-53269942432947468262009-06-02T21:48:37.061-04:002009-06-02T21:48:37.061-04:00"From the outside, a fertilized chicken egg (..."From the outside, a fertilized chicken egg (also known as an unborn, developing chicken) looks very much like an unfertilized chicken egg (which ISN'T one). So yah: once a chicken egg is fertilized, a new chicken's life commences."<br /><br />New cellular material, absolutely. New organism? Not even close.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-27449894020779293062009-06-02T21:19:06.431-04:002009-06-02T21:19:06.431-04:00bmmg39-
Utterly correct.
Although most of the eg...bmmg39-<br /><br />Utterly correct.<br /><br />Although most of the eggs in the market aren't fertilized, any "free range" ones you get are very likely to be chicken embryos-- you may even be able to see an eye spot.<br /><br />A few times on various ranches I've had the "educational" experience of opening an egg that was a bit further along. Not very good in omelets. ^.^ (A delicacy in some countries, though.)Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-72523575427883925882009-06-02T21:11:55.860-04:002009-06-02T21:11:55.860-04:00"But was it a chicken organism when it looked..."But was it a chicken organism when it looked like the eggs you crack open for an omelet? No."<br /><br />From the outside, a fertilized chicken egg (also known as an unborn, developing chicken) looks very much like an unfertilized chicken egg (which ISN'T one). So yah: once a chicken egg is fertilized, a new chicken's life commences. Such is the case with human fertilization. I'd be glad to provide citations from science textbooks, but I'm not convinced it will help you with your denial issues.bmmg39https://www.blogger.com/profile/07677426947413877513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-13024231121261851582009-06-02T19:41:29.397-04:002009-06-02T19:41:29.397-04:00"In response to your sheer misconception that they..."In response to your sheer misconception that they are "lumps of tissue," not as a scientific definition."<br /><br />I have no idea what that sentence is referring to.<br /><br /><br />"Hate to break it to you, but basic biology isn't very scientific"<br /><br />I'm really getting the feeling here that you don;t have the slightest idea what biology is. Now granted those of us who are in physics and chemistry (including me, my degree is in physics, I used to work in materials analysis for Intel and now I work for a state university doing basically the same thing) sometimes tease biologists as being a "softer" science, but this is just good natured ribbing and some jealousy on our part since most of the women are in the bio department.<br /><br />Biology is most definitely a science. It's a well developed and important science and one of it's principle applications, medicine, has seen enormous development due to the good science done by biologists.<br /><br /><br />"The basic biology *is* that they are human beings-- that isn't the scientific definition, that's basic biology and simple English."<br /><br />You seem to be using the term "basic biology" to" mean something like "the everyday layman's understanding of biology." I look at the term and think "what they teach in BIO 151-3 or even 101-3".Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-602833738011519592009-06-02T19:18:34.843-04:002009-06-02T19:18:34.843-04:00In response to your sheer misconception that they ...In response to your sheer misconception that they are "lumps of tissue," not as a scientific definition.<br /><br />Hate to break it to you, but basic biology isn't very scientific-- dogs have puppies, not kittens, rocks aren't alive, plants aren't animals, life doesn't spontaneously generate, etc.<br /><br />The basic biology *is* that they are human beings-- that isn't the scientific definition, that's basic biology and simple English. As I pointed out, the definition of the basic English term...bah, why repeat myself?<br /><br />The scientific definition might be referring to the fetus as separate organism representing homo sapiens sapiens, for the very short version-- you'd have to clarify what you want defined before a scientific definition could be found.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-19835087970726412222009-06-02T19:01:36.704-04:002009-06-02T19:01:36.704-04:00"Actually, you did."
No really I didn't. Here's ..."Actually, you did."<br /><br />No <I>really</I> I didn't. Here's the quote:<br />""I won't even be obnoxious and point out the basic biology that a fetus is a human being ""<br /><br />That quote explicitly says that there is a scientific definition of human being in biology that includes the fetus. That's precisely what I refuted. <br /><br />Unless you really don't understand that <I>biology</I> is a <I>science</I> your argument makes no sense.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-38159077624151461462009-06-02T18:54:43.058-04:002009-06-02T18:54:43.058-04:00No, I really don't. Notice that I don;t introduce ...<I>No, I really don't. Notice that I don;t introduce the idea of a scientific definition of human being.</I><BR><BR>Actually, you did.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-38595652340523071082009-06-02T18:50:48.758-04:002009-06-02T18:50:48.758-04:00"you sure do get hung up on "scientific" don't you..."you sure do get hung up on "scientific" don't you?"<br /><br />No, I really don't. Notice that I don;t introduce the idea of a scientific definition of human being. I merely refute it when others do. I'm perfectly aware that this argument revolves around subjective evaluations of personhood which science has no say in. <br /><br /><br />"The first mention of "scientific":"<br /><br />I was responding to a claim about biology. That's a <I>science</I>. I'm sorry, I thought that was common knowledge.<br /><br /><br />"Human being is a common English term"<br /><br />Precisely. It is a common English term. Its definition has no scientific value (even if it uses a term like "Homo Sapiens" in it).<br /><br /><br />"Did you sleep through the part where a fetus is a member of the genus Homo sapiens?"<br /><br />Define "member." If by that you mean organism then I didn't sleep through it because it never happened.<br /><br /><br />"For our next trick, Tlaloc will try to insist that a chicken egg about to hatch is not alive, and in fact is not a member of the species "chicken;""<br /><br />Just before it hatches it certainly is an organism. Just like a fetus moments before birth. But was it a chicken organism when it looked like the eggs you crack open for an omelet? No. See all nice and consistent.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-45406024959401303792009-06-02T18:40:14.114-04:002009-06-02T18:40:14.114-04:00"A fetus is a stage of human development"
Very tr..."A fetus is a stage of human development"<br /><br />Very true.<br /><br /><br />"Only one of the three I just listed are able to reproduce, if you cut them off from the continuum of their biological development."<br /><br />Also true, and it is a good point that I agree with. An even bette example are social species like insects where the drones have no part in the reproductive cycle (after having been themselves born of course). Reproduction shouldn't be one of the criteria for life. Or if it is kept as a criteria then it should have an extra conditional. <br /><br />But it's not my fault that biology includes reproduction in the list. And notice my examples detailing why a fetus is not a complete organism unto itself do not use that criteria (I focus on the more fundamental issues of respiration and digestion).Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-75180347450074527492009-06-02T15:36:11.683-04:002009-06-02T15:36:11.683-04:00For someone so ignorant of basic science as to ass...For someone so ignorant of basic science as to assert that a post-viability fetus is somehow not alive, while an infant is, you sure do get hung up on "scientific" don't you?<br /><br />The first mention of "scientific":<br /><I>That's not biology. Human being is not a scientific term. It is a philosophical distinction.</I><BR><BR>Human being is a common English term with the primary meaning "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens."<br /><br />Did you sleep through the part where a fetus is a member of the genus Homo sapiens?<br /><br />For our next trick, Tlaloc will try to insist that a chicken egg about to hatch is not alive, and in fact is not a member of the species "chicken;" life apparently self-generates at the moment most fitting to Tlaloc's personal philosophy.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-50609149124977214512009-06-02T15:31:50.214-04:002009-06-02T15:31:50.214-04:00Tlaloc, you're grasping at straws so feeble that I...Tlaloc, you're grasping at straws so feeble that I'm shocked you can stand yourself.<br /><br />A fetus is a stage of human development, just as a toddler, a teenager, a post-menopausal woman are. Only one of the three I just listed are able to reproduce, if you cut them off from the continuum of their biological development.<br /><br />Try again!Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-5933327598767644562009-06-02T15:31:05.810-04:002009-06-02T15:31:05.810-04:00"Folks, don't worry about Tlaloc spinning to try t..."Folks, don't worry about Tlaloc spinning to try to ignore a basic English definition."<br /><br /><I>Thank you</I>, this is what I've been saying all along- "human being" is a function of basic english and not a scientific term.<br /><br /><br />"If he manages to say anything new, let's respond to that-- but don't make him think his frantic attempts to twist are having any effect, 'k?"<br /><br />Uh... but you <I>just</I> admitted what I've been trying to get you guys to understand. That seems like I've had an effect, in fact the exact effect I was going for (education).Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-40831502671879885172009-06-02T15:28:41.805-04:002009-06-02T15:28:41.805-04:00"As you are doing on another thread, you (like so ..."As you are doing on another thread, you (like so many others) desperately try to work backwards: since you would just as soon not consider the embryo or fetus to be a human being, you try to work backwards, finding something she cannot yet do or does not yet have (or, really, that she does have but is not yet formed or visible), and then you say, "THERE. That's the main criterion for whether an entity is a human being or not.""<br /><br />Uh, no. The criteria for life is pretty well established. Respiration, action, digestion, reproduction and all that. That the fetus during early and mid development cannot carry on all of these processes by itself (even if removed to an environment outside the mother) means something. You don't have to like what it means, but it means something nonetheless.<br /><br /><br />"If you wish to split hairs and say that "human being" is not a scientific term, then, fine. Neither is George Tiller, neither am I, and neither are you. If we can explain away anyone's personhood, then we can do the same for everyone else."<br /><br />That's nonsense. In the first place saying that human being is not a scientific term is not splitting hairs, it is simply acknowledging <I>that the term is not in fact scientific</I>. Most of the english language is not scientific. "Poetry" has no meaning in science. Of course poetry as a concept still exists. Similarly the soul is not a scientific concept. If it exists it is outside the scope of science to describe. If someone tells you they have <I>scientific</I> definition of poetry or soul (or human being) they are simply ignorant.Tlalochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16357673798336376049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-12601155912261416372009-06-02T12:37:29.551-04:002009-06-02T12:37:29.551-04:00Folks, don't worry about Tlaloc spinning to try to...Folks, don't worry about Tlaloc spinning to try to ignore a basic English definition. You're just giving him the attention he wants.<br /><br />If he manages to say anything new, let's respond to that-- but don't make him think his frantic attempts to twist are having any effect, 'k?<br /><br />I've got enough faith in the brainpower of anyone who shows up later on....Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-25942044101537848962009-06-02T12:23:28.298-04:002009-06-02T12:23:28.298-04:00As you are doing on another thread, you (like so m...As you are doing on another thread, you (like so many others) desperately try to work backwards: since you would just as soon not consider the embryo or fetus to be a human being, you try to work backwards, finding something she cannot yet do or does not yet have (or, really, that she does have but is not yet formed or visible), and then you say, "THERE. That's the main criterion for whether an entity is a human being or not."<br /><br />If you wish to split hairs and say that "human being" is not a scientific term, then, fine. Neither is George Tiller, neither am I, and neither are you. If we can explain away anyone's personhood, then we can do the same for everyone else.bmmg39https://www.blogger.com/profile/07677426947413877513noreply@blogger.com