Jim Naseum Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person." Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here. Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person. The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes. I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong." We're talking past each other. I mention the definitions in order to make a point about knowledge. As we develop knowledge we catagorize it and make distinctions (taxonomy) about different objects and ideas. When I hear people scream, "you are killing babies" and they are talking about abortions, I feel compelled to point out that in fact we are not killing "babies" according to our best knowledge. We are killing fetuses. And the reason the words are important is the distinction we have about the knowledge. The human knowledge about the universe has decided that a baby is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as an embryo and so on. Some people value this knowledge, and maybe try to employ it, and obviously others can choose to ignore it, disbelieve it, or disagree with it. That's their choice. My choice is to appreciate the distinction. Perhaps the law chooses something else. Perhaps a religion choose yet a different thing. We all line up behind some set of beliefs - which just mean an organized set of information we trust. The world isn't ideal. Most things are a compromise, and abortions are one of those compromises where various interests must be weighed. There's not much good to say about wars or abortions, and yet we have them both and must live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 Check out the links I just posted. It doesn't give odds on "other" but it does give numbers regarding murders. " The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks — 45 people — is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies, according to New America, a research organization in Washington. And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period. But the disproportionate focus they draw in the news media and their effect on public fear demand the attention of any administration." Not to mention heart disease, cancer and diabetes as ways people will die. It's been estimated that we could save 10,000 live a YEAR by doing nothing more exotic than lowering the speed limit to 55. Our hysteria is misplaced, as usual. About 100 key leaders right now are leading 310M people around by the nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 My choice is to appreciate the distinction. You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 My choice is to appreciate the distinction. You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is? No, but it effects what I will do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Absolutely! And a pile of shit doesn't smell any sweeter if you call it a rose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 My farts smell like roses. However, they more resemble a pile of roses gone bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 6, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 6, 2015 P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes. I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong." You are trying to use "scientific" definitions in support on an argument about the priority or morals. Science uses terminology as part of science, just line engineering does. Science doesn't make judgements on when something is deserving of protection, or not. You used the term "person" and said it was "defined" by science. That suggests, in my view, there is some sort of scientific "evidence" in support of outting existing lives ahead of embryos, fetuses or what ever else. All I am saying is the a biological term isn't "science" and it doesn't have anything to do with moral and ethical decisions and priorities. Biologists, Embryologists, Zoologists and other scientists pick and use terms either out of convention or convenience, not for purposes associated with moral priorities. Saying that a science textbook says usesthe term "fetus" to describe the biological structure of something between two chronological points of gestation doesn't does not apply to a discussion of priorities about that structure. It has as much weight as paying "the Pope says life starts at conception." Neither is science or evidence of where,or what the priorities should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Saying that a science textbook says usesthe term "fetus" to describe the biological structure of something between two chronological points of gestation doesn't does not apply to a discussion of priorities about that structure. It has as much weight as paying "the Pope says life starts at conception." You replied to my post, but I can tell you intended to reply to Jo's. In any event, that was very well-stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 6, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 6, 2015 Check out the links I just posted. It doesn't give odds on "other" but it does give numbers regarding murders. " The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks — 45 people — is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies, according to New America, a research organization in Washington. And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period. But the disproportionate focus they draw in the news media and their effect on public fear demand the attention of any administration." Thise were great, thank you. It looks like, at least, 25 people a year die by being struck by lightning in the US. At least a ten time greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a domestic or foriegn terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2015 P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes. I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong." We're talking past each other. I mention the definitions in order to make a point about knowledge. As we develop knowledge we catagorize it and make distinctions (taxonomy) about different objects and ideas. When I hear people scream, "you are killing babies" and they are talking about abortions, I feel compelled to point out that in fact we are not killing "babies" according to our best knowledge. We are killing fetuses. And the reason the words are important is the distinction we have about the knowledge. The human knowledge about the universe has decided that a baby is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as an embryo and so on. Some people value this knowledge, and maybe try to employ it, and obviously others can choose to ignore it, disbelieve it, or disagree with it. That's their choice. My choice is to appreciate the distinction. Perhaps the law chooses something else. Perhaps a religion choose yet a different thing. We all line up behind some set of beliefs - which just mean an organized set of information we trust. The world isn't ideal. Most things are a compromise, and abortions are one of those compromises where various interests must be weighed. There's not much good to say about wars or abortions, and yet we have them both and must live with that. I completely agree with you that, proponents of an issue will resort to phrases calculated to stir an emotional reaction. Killing Babies Meat is Murder War on Drugs Deadly Vaccine Gross exaggerations stir an emotional response, which is the point of propoganda. Anything that looks like it it could be from a news headline, bumper sticker or from a protest sign I tend to ignore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2015 My choice is to appreciate the distinction. You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is? Lets try it. Tomato (Tow ma toe) Nope "Tow may ter" Nope Liberal tomato Yep Conservative tomato Yep Nazi tomato YEP Socialist Tomato YEP Ketchup Nope I guess it depends on what it is and the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Nazi tomatoes are the best. Much like Nazi gold, no one can resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2015 Nazi tomatoes are the best. Much like Nazi gold, no one can resist. Well you haven't lived until you have had a Socialist Tomato. It's the GMO tomatoes you have to watch out for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Some would say Nazi tomatoes are socialist, because of the name. Of course anyone who would confuse the two are complete morons. Oh look! Lots of our politicians think that. And the people who vote for them agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I completely agree with you that, proponents of an issue will resort to phrases calculated to stir an emotional reaction. "Bose is Good" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Nazi Bose is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Did somebody mention Boze? I like the Emerald Boze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Yellow Boze are pretty, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Feather boas around a stripper are better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts