Abortion

[Jarhyn]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science. But when science interferes with somebody's world view they don't understand it. Talking to feticide rights people about science is like talking to YEC people about science.

As long as science supports their opinions it's fine. When it doesn't it becomes incomprehensible. Suddenly, they don't understand the difference between "life", "being alive", "an individual live", and "a human life".

Really. It's right there in this thread.
Tom

The differences you discuss are not scientific, they are philosophical.

Biology only discusses chemical activities, and molecular motors, often in general or large scale aggregate.

Raw, moving, real chemicals don't  care about arbitrary distinctions we make between "life" "an individual life" or "a human life".

What CAN be said is that we each will defend ourselves, most of us lethally, to keep others from coopting us and our organs to others

 

[TomC]

The differences you discuss are not scientific, they are philosophical.

So,
You think that the biologists teaching "Life Cycle of a placental mammal" are philosophers?

I understand that basic science interferes with your world view. It interferes with the YEC people I live around as well.
Doesn't change my mind.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[TomC]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You disagree with elementary science if it interferes with your world view.

I already knew that

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The differences you discuss are not scientific, they are philosophical.

So,
You think that the biologists teaching "Life Cycle of a placental mammal" are philosophers?

I understand that basic science interferes with your world view.

Much to the point, your argument lacks much of an actual involvement of science, it seems more to juxtaposition your opponents with slaver owners and young-earth creationists.

DNA and Chromosomes doesn't make something alive. There is something much more involved in making something life. Biology teaches us mammals reproduce new life with a notably long gestation for human women. Woman dies, fetus dies. A fetus can not even exist outside the womb until the third trimester, and with that, can be very difficult and requires technology to see to it. The typical argument response is infants need help too. But not to breath or digest food.

Fetuses have the code to become a human being, but that doesn't make them one yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

The differences you discuss are not scientific, they are philosophical.

So,
You think that the biologists teaching "Life Cycle of a placental mammal" are philosophers?

I understand that basic science interferes with your world view. It interferes with the YEC people I live around as well.
Doesn't change my mind.
Tom

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

Your spin begs so many questions, though, and I will not provide it any mercy I am not obliged.

Biologists talk in general about various rough epochs of this process we call life, but it cares not for our declarations of where borders lay any more than the birds care about where a nations border is said to be.

Most biologists discussing such topics are smart enough to avoid such philosophical drivel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You disagree with elementary science if it interferes with your world view.

A fetus is no more a developed human being than a caterpillar is a butterfly.

 

[TomC]

Much to the point, your argument lacks much of an actual involvement of science

Why not?

Are you saying that human beings are not primates?
Tom

 

[TomC]

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

I didn't do that.
Tom

 

[TomC]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You disagree with elementary science if it interferes with your world view.

A fetus is no more a developed human being than a caterpillar is a butterfly.

I didn't say that.

Wanna respond to anything I actually did say?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

I didn't do that.
Tom

Yes you did, using 'biologists teaching the life cycle of a placental mammal' as a proxy for yourself, implying doing so is doing this thing which I call philosophy, and moreover is drivel.

 

[TomC]

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

I didn't do that.
Tom

Yes you did, using 'biologists teaching the life cycle of a placental mammal' as a proxy for yourself, implying doing so is doing this thing which I call philosophy, and moreover are drivel.

So you're saying that basic biology is "doing this thing which I call philosophy"?

YEC people say the same thing. I see your world view as excruciatingly similar. "Science that doesn't agree with me isn't science. It's philosophy."
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

I didn't do that.
Tom

Yes you did, using 'biologists teaching the life cycle of a placental mammal' as a proxy for yourself, implying doing so is doing this thing which I call philosophy, and moreover are drivel.

So you're saying that basic biology is "doing this thing which I call philosophy"?

YEC people say the same thing. I see your world view as excruciatingly similar. "Science that doesn't agree with me isn't science. It's philosophy."
Tom

No, I'm saying anyone, biologist or otherwise, making claims as to "when life begins" "what is a life" "what human life is" is doing this thing which I call philosophy because the chemistry does not care about arbitrary distinctions humans make when they view it.

The issue is you are trying to claim as science, an aspect of pure philosophy, and a driveling one at that.

You might as well ask how many angels are dancing on the pinhead while you are at it.

 

[TomC]

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

I didn't do that.
Tom

Yes you did, using 'biologists teaching the life cycle of a placental mammal' as a proxy for yourself, implying doing so is doing this thing which I call philosophy, and moreover are drivel.

So you're saying that basic biology is "doing this thing which I call philosophy"?

YEC people say the same thing. I see your world view as excruciatingly similar. "Science that doesn't agree with me isn't science. It's philosophy."
Tom

No, I'm saying anyone, biologist or otherwise, making claims as to "when life begins" "what is a life" "what human life is" is doing this thing which I call philosophy because the chemistry does not care about arbitrary distinctions humans make when they view it.

The issue is you are trying to claim as science, an aspect of pure philosophy, and a driveling one at that.

You might as well ask how many angels are dancing on the pinhead while you are at it.

You and Ken Ham have a lot in common.

Your opinions are science. Those of us who disagree are philosophers.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I think anyone declaring where life starts and stops is engaging in philosophy..

I didn't do that.
Tom

Yes you did, using 'biologists teaching the life cycle of a placental mammal' as a proxy for yourself, implying doing so is doing this thing which I call philosophy, and moreover are drivel.

So you're saying that basic biology is "doing this thing which I call philosophy"?

YEC people say the same thing. I see your world view as excruciatingly similar. "Science that doesn't agree with me isn't science. It's philosophy."
Tom

No, I'm saying anyone, biologist or otherwise, making claims as to "when life begins" "what is a life" "what human life is" is doing this thing which I call philosophy because the chemistry does not care about arbitrary distinctions humans make when they view it.

The issue is you are trying to claim as science, an aspect of pure philosophy, and a driveling one at that.

You might as well ask how many angels are dancing on the pinhead while you are at it.

You and Ken Ham have a lot in common.

Your opinions are science. Those of us who disagree are philosophers.
Tom

Sure, make a dishonest comparison all day long, but the fact is that, in many cases just like "man" and "woman", the crisp line you imagine just doesn't exist.

Most actual biologists will be the first to explain this to you.

Yet here you are using them to prop up your philosophy, speaking for them because they conveniently aren't here. Well, a few are here.

Hey @Toni, where you at?

 

[TomC]

Most actual biologists will be the first to explain this to you.

Show me an actual biologist that will explain that human beings aren't primates, so the cycle of life doesn't apply.

Doubtless you could find some on "AnswersinGenesis.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You disagree with elementary science if it interferes with your world view.

A fetus is no more a developed human being than a caterpillar is a butterfly.

I didn't say that.

Wanna respond to anything I actually did say?

That'll be tough. You aren't actually saying much.

 

[TomC]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You disagree with elementary science if it interferes with your world view.

A fetus is no more a developed human being than a caterpillar is a butterfly.

I didn't say that.

Wanna respond to anything I actually did say?

That'll be tough. You aren't actually saying much.

Human beings aren't bugs.

People feeling entitled to choose death for other human beings is a moral issue.
Bugs, not so much.

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A fetus is no more a developed human being than a caterpillar is a butterfly.

I didn't say that.

Wanna respond to anything I actually did say?

That'll be tough. You aren't actually saying much.

Human beings aren't bugs.

Warm blooded, give live birth, hair... that checks.

People feeling entitled to choose death for other human beings is a moral issue.

You use the term human being very loosely. Fetuses are humans that aren't being yet. Meanwhile, pregnant women are human beings that are making with the actual being.

Bugs, not so much.

Tom

You brought up biology, yet you seem very unfamiliar with it.

 

[Toni]

Most actual biologists will be the first to explain this to you.

Show me an actual biologist that will explain that human beings aren't primates, so the cycle of life doesn't apply.

Doubtless you could find some on "AnswersinGenesis.
Tom

I haven’t been following this thread but it seems to be that your statement above is a non-sequitor.

Human beings are primates of course but that has nothing to do with when life begins.