[Omniscaper]

"Relative humanity in relation to cognitive thought" still depends on the life processes for it to come to pass. Fact of the matter is, we did not WILL ourselves into existence. We must go through the stages of human development to get to the point of cognative thought. You cant seperate the two and claim superiority over another who is in a different stage of development. We are not the same "person" psychologically or molecularly 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. Nevertheless it is YOUR process of development.

Restricting the definition of what makes us "human" to thought processes is simply treading on the lines of cold technicallities. Primary qualities, that make human beings stand out from the animal world is our ability to overcome instincts and an awareness and understanding of our place in the universe through abstract thought.

If you prefer to picture yourself as a simple animal trying to survive, you are more than capable to do so. I prefer to cling to the noble idea of being Human.

[Herra Tohtori]

Arrr...

Fact: If we want to keep fertility clinics running, we will unavoidably get thousonds of embryos per year that won't get to grow up.

Fact #2: These embryos have two possibilities - end up being biological garbage OR subject of research.

Make of this what you will, but I can only see it like this: As those embryos would be dying anyway, making research on those embryos is a better choice than just dump them into garbage.

I suspect there would be quite an uproar if fertility clinics were shut down, thus forbiding people with problems having children from having children at first place. Of course one could argue that if some unlucky pair cannot have children, too bad - Mr. Darwin steps into the ring. But as we DO have a possibility to help people have children if they want some, I feel we shouldn't deny them that possibility.

[Ford Prefect]

"Relative humanity in relation to cognitive thought" still depends on the life processes for it to come to pass. Fact of the matter is, we did not WILL ourselves into existence. We must go through the stages of human development to get to the point of cognative thought. You cant seperate the two and claim superiority over another who is in a different stage of development. We are not the same "person" psychologically or molecularly 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. Nevertheless it is YOUR process of development.

Restricting the definition of what makes us "human" to thought processes is simply treading on the lines of cold technicallities. Primary qualities, that make human beings stand out from the animal world is our ability to overcome instincts and an awareness and understanding of our place in the universe through abstract thought.

If you prefer to picture yourself as a simple animal trying to survive, you are more than capable to do so. I prefer to cling to the noble idea of being Human.

But these faculties you cite that comprise the "noble idea of being human" are not faculties possessed by an embryo. Regardless of an embryo's potential, it is not capable of experiencing, and it thus cannot be robbed of its future because it does not desire its future. Only with the emergence of self-consciousness can an entity desire to be self-conscious. To declare the embryo sacred because it can be called human life is to commit the fallacy of placing the concept's categorical definition as logically prior to its traits. The fact still remains that an unconscious entity is serving to preserve the existence of a self-conscious entity, and if you claim that you do not draw an intuitive, hierarchical distinction between these two things, I am afraid I cannot believe you.

[Goober5000]

Okay, passed that one (though by referring to religious authority, but whatever). Next level question:

Assuming that this is true and mammals and birds have souls, what makes human souls soo special above other groups of souls that makes you so eager to defend even human embryos while you apparently can accept (while perhaps reluctantly) the use of other mammals in tests that not only are aimed at mice embryos, ape embryos and such, but also in full-grown animals?

Yes, I think I know what you are about to answer - humans are "above others for our intelligence and ability to produce art and so on", or something that closely matches those lines of thought - correct me if I do thee injustice.

While this is true, and I certainly agree with that line of reasoning, what it comes down to is this: Humans are created in the image of God. No other creature is (not even angels).

Question: What proof do you have that it damages embryo's soul if the embryo dies before developing further? Of course you don't have a proof, but just tell me, please, what harm can come to the soul in this case?

Oh, I don't believe its soul is damaged at all.  But the embryo is unjustly denied its only chance at life.

*The point marked with star is an example that is supposed to show how ridiculous and pointless it is to bring religious authorities into any kind of conversation. Also it shows that appealing to "God's intention" in any matter is just as pointless, because things can turn out in any ways and it could still be seen as "God's intention".

This opens up a theological can of worms, but I don't believe God is up there controlling every minute detail as if we're helpless meat-puppets on strings.  God "wills" certain things in that he would prefer that they happen, but he doesn't "will" them in the sense of fate.  God intervenes, but only to the extent that we let him.

but not scientific evidence?  Experience of what, exactly?

Well, considering past experiences with Kazan, I hesitate to say that scientific evidence can "prove" it - but it is definitely compatible with it.  So I'm approaching it from a different angle: how would you "prove" something in a court of law?  You ask witnesses what they've experienced and you attempt to draw conclusions from that.  So I would include reading about others experiences; watching people's lives be changed (immediately and over a course of many years); seeing events unfold that would be inexplicable except through God's direction; and observing miracles both secondhand (via friends and acquaintances) and firsthand.  References available upon request.

[Omniscaper]

I'm not trying to get anyone to believe anything. I'm mere giving my perspective on the matter and responding to questions about my statements with my philosophical foundations. That is what drives me today. Did I have these thoughts as an embryo? I cant remember. My not rembering or even cognatively thinking at that stage does not change the fact that I existed.

Fact:

An embryo is a necesarry stage of human development in the material world.
Cognative or not, the same DNA exists in an adult and embryotic stage, human DNA nonetheless.


The core of the matter is, the human embryo is at a helpless stage of development and requires a defense from those who prefer to exploit it as a resource. The loss of embryos at a fertility clinic is matter of circumstance and is a different ball of wax to tackle. Embyotic stem cell research is a choice. A choice that many people including myself do not agree with.

[Grug]

I'm not trying to get anyone to believe anything. I'm mere giving my perspective on the matter and responding to questions about my statements with my philosophical foundations. That is what drives me today. Did I have these thoughts as an embryo? I cant remember. My not rembering or even cognatively thinking at that stage does not change the fact that I existed.

Fact:

An embryo is a necesarry stage of human development in the material world.
Cognative or not, the same DNA exists in an adult and embryotic stage, human DNA nonetheless.


The core of the matter is, the human embryo is at a helpless stage of development and requires a defense from those who prefer to exploit it as a resource. The loss of embryos at a fertility clinic is matter of circumstance and is a different ball of wax to tackle. Embyotic stem cell research is a choice. A choice that many people including myself do not agree with.

Yes, but in Australia all these embryo's are being chucked straight into the garbage. They've got no chance at life anyway, why is it bad to learn from them?
The law is slowly leaning towards this other way anywho. It would probably be faster if John Howard wasn't Christian, but that's another story. >..>

[aldo_14]

Well, considering past experiences with Kazan, I hesitate to say that scientific evidence can "prove" it - but it is definitely compatible with it.  So I'm approaching it from a different angle: how would you "prove" something in a court of law?  You ask witnesses what they've experienced and you attempt to draw conclusions from that.  So I would include reading about others experiences; watching people's lives be changed (immediately and over a course of many years); seeing events unfold that would be inexplicable except through God's direction; and observing miracles both secondhand (via friends and acquaintances) and firsthand.  References available upon request.

so what exactly have witnesses experienced that would endow a clump of 50-150 cells (which you'd need a microscope to see) with being human, in the context of the human characteristics (independence, intelligence, self awareness, capacity to learn) which we use to value ourselves above animals?

Moreso, isn't it a hell of a lot easier to see miracles if you're looking to believe in them?  for some people every premature birth that survives is a miracle; for others it's medical science.  But if you reject science as a basis - which is the basis here - then you can only explain things through God, because you've pre-dismissed the explanation.  It's the same scenario is with the milk-drinking Ganesh statues (and later of other dieties once it was reported) a few years back; simple capillary action due to porous rock, but it caused mass religious hysteria because people wanted to believe.

And wanting to believe isn't bad, but it places - in this court context - quite a bit more than reasonable doubt about the applicability of your arguements to the rest of the population, who may not share them and have no secular or neutral reason to do so.  Because we are still talking about the potential to save a lot of people with foetal stem cell reasearch, after all.

Note@ Omni; human DNA exists in blood cells shed from the body, too.  It exists in tumourous masses too, I believe.  It's not always individually unique, either (identical twins share it).  It also continues to exist long after the point of death as part of the body.  I'm not really wanting to get in a huge beginning-of-life arguement justnow because I had one not that long ago (like a bit of variety), but surely it's a bit dodgy applying a different qualifer to the beginning of human life (DNA) to the end (neurological) of it. It's a bit like, IMO, does having the instructions to build a lego spaceship mean that pile of loose blocks is already a spaceship?

[Omniscaper]

Embyo's containing DNA was not even the point of my statement. Its about defining what makes us human.

To compare a self-developing embyro (with motherly evironmental assistance) to unassembled legos with instructions is just rediculous.

[aldo_14]

Embyo's containing DNA was not even the point of my statement. Its about defining what makes us human.

To compare a self-developing embyro (with motherly evironmental assistance) to unassembled legos with instructions is just rediculous.

Is it? 

This is at a tangent to the original debate, perhaps, but what is it that makes humans held as higher that other animals in our reckoning?  Is it not cognition? 

Is that congition not proven to occur late in the developmental process (I believe it's about 20 weeks, which the first active brainwaves can be read on EEG), and before that period there is no capacity for thought (brain cells are developed but not interconnected; there is no connection between the nerves/spine and the brain so no capacity to recieve and response to sensation), not a factor in considering humanity and human rights (I think, therefore I am)?  If we define humanity with DNA, what is the consequence to brain dead vegetative state patients?

If you hold neurology as the basis for the start of human life - and we already use it as the basis for the end - then is the developing embryo (in this case, blastocyst) not in exactly the same temporal state as a block of legoes - i.e. 'some assembly required'?  The main difference is the assembly method, but that doesn't really matter if you're just considering that state in time; and even if it does matter, both require significant input from an output source to be assembled - the womans role in pregnancy isn't exactly trivial, otherwise we'd have aritificial wombs and the whole issue could be sidestepped by replacing abortion (which is usually one of the things this boils down to) with quasi-transplantation and adoption.

[Ford Prefect]

Exactly. I feel like I'm beating this point to death, but logically prioritizing something's category over its qualities is a philosophical no-no. You can't just say, "It's human, period, so we have to defend it." What defines it as human? We seem to agree that our humanity is defined by our self-consciousness, but embryos are physically incapable of possessing even consciousness, never mind self-consciousness. So how can an embryo experience a violation? You argue that we are robbing it of the potential for a self-conscious existence, but the entire principle behind the defense of individual sovereignty is the notion that the entire existence of loss is dependent on the individual's capacity to be cognizant of that loss. I'm weighing the importance of an embryo against that of a person with experiences, attachments, and the actual desire to exist in the first place. It makes no sense to me to sacrifice the well-being of someone who can desire his/her life for the sake of something that is not even aware it exists.

[Goober5000]

so what exactly have witnesses experienced that would endow a clump of 50-150 cells (which you'd need a microscope to see) with being human, in the context of the human characteristics (independence, intelligence, self awareness, capacity to learn) which we use to value ourselves above animals?

Basically, the miracles and events convince me that the God of the Bible exists; thus it makes sense to accept the Bible's authority on other things.  Life beginning at conception seems to be one of them.

Moreso, isn't it a hell of a lot easier to see miracles if you're looking to believe in them?

Oh absolutely.  And not just "the miracle of birth" either.  About two years ago I was very skeptical that miracles of the sort described in the Bible still occurred; but now I know that they do.

But if you reject science as a basis - which is the basis here - then you can only explain things through God, because you've pre-dismissed the explanation. It's the same scenario is with the milk-drinking Ganesh statues (and later of other dieties once it was reported) a few years back; simple capillary action due to porous rock, but it caused mass religious hysteria because people wanted to believe.

Where have I rejected science here?  I like science.  But science can be wrong and often is; and it's revised all the time.  If you observe something that contradicts an existing assumption, you have to revise that assumption.

In the same way, I'm hesitant to reject the milk miracle out of hand either, despite the fact that it's from a different religion.  Supposedly it didn't occur with idols of any other god, and it hasn't been replicated in any form since.

[aldo_14]

Basically, the miracles and events convince me that the God of the Bible exists; thus it makes sense to accept the Bible's authority on other things.  Life beginning at conception seems to be one of them.

Oh absolutely.  And not just "the miracle of birth" either.  About two years ago I was very skeptical that miracles of the sort described in the Bible still occurred; but now I know that they do.

Example please of these irrefutable miracles.  Remember, they have to irrefutable - you're talking about applying your own belief based upon them to an entire country.

Where have I rejected science here?  I like science.  But science can be wrong and often is; and it's revised all the time.  If you observe something that contradicts an existing assumption, you have to revise that assumption.

If you apply that approach, we can never use science as a basis for anything because it might, just might be wrong regardless of how unlikely that would be.  What you've suggested it using subjective observation of individual cases ahead of the empirical observation of science (because if science didn't contradict you, you'd just cite it and we'd be done).

In the same way, I'm hesitant to reject the milk miracle out of hand either, despite the fact that it's from a different religion.  Supposedly it didn't occur with idols of any other god, and it hasn't been replicated in any form since.

It was replicated with Christian idols and non-religious status, IIRC.  Unfortunately it was one of those articles you stumble onto, so I can't get a link.  But it was definately not just Hindu idols, and could be replicated (offhand, I think all you need a is a sequence of hot days and porous rock).

EDIT; sorry, surface tension and capillery action, depending on the statue type.  Some scientists offered coloured milk to a statue in Delhi, IIRC, and saw it coat the outside of it.

[Goober5000]

Example please of these irrefutable miracles.  Remember, they have to irrefutable - you're talking about applying your own belief based upon them to an entire country.

K.  In order of least to most personal:

Israel is re-formed as a sovereign nation after over 2000 years of exile, as foretold in the Bible (and as Sandwich has mentioned before).

Speakers at various conferences I've been to have mentioned casting out demons and seeing other miracles while on missionary trips.

A friend (let's call him Scott) told me about a friend (let's call her Sarah) whose mom was in the hospital with some debilitating disease, died, and was pronounced dead.  Sarah got a bunch of friends together, formed an impromptu prayer and worship session in her hospital room, and after this went on for a while the mom was brought back to life.

Another friend (let's call him Tim) went on a missionary trip to India one spring break and saw several miracles personally, including at least one firsthand where he and a bunch of others prayed for a deaf man to be healed.  The man was healed on the spot.

Over this past Christmas break I went to a Christian conference that emphasized this sort of thing, and I attended a seminar they had on healing.  At the end the speakers said they felt like God wanted to heal some people, so they encouraged people to break into small groups and pray for each other.  Figuring it couldn't hurt to try, I asked some people to pray for my asthma.  Lo and behold, it was healed.

These are just the ones I remember offhand.  If you want more I could probably pass along a bunch of others given a day's worth of emailing.

If you apply that approach, we can never use science as a basis for anything because it might, just might be wrong regardless of how unlikely that would be.  What you've suggested it using subjective observation of individual cases ahead of the empirical observation of science (because if science didn't contradict you, you'd just cite it and we'd be done).

No, that's not my position at all.  If something is logically coherent and well established, I proceed on the assumption that it's true.  It's only if I observe or experience something contradictory that I have to reevaluate my assumptions.

This is what happened with my position on miracles, for example.  For a long time, I took it for granted that major miracles just didn't happen in the modern age.  When the aforementioned Scott started seeing counterexamples, my position softened.  Eventually I started seeing them too.

[Ghostavo]

So you are basing your beliefs on placebos?

EDIT::
Rereading this again, I find it may be somewhat insulting of me to say this.

A more sensible question would be, how do you know it was a christian god that made all those miracles (if indeed they are)?

[aldo_14]

K.  In order of least to most personal:

Israel is re-formed as a sovereign nation after over 2000 years of exile, as foretold in the Bible (and as Sandwich has mentioned before).

Speakers at various conferences I've been to have mentioned casting out demons and seeing other miracles while on missionary trips.

A friend (let's call him Scott) told me about a friend (let's call her Sarah) whose mom was in the hospital with some debilitating disease, died, and was pronounced dead.  Sarah got a bunch of friends together, formed an impromptu prayer and worship session in her hospital room, and after this went on for a while the mom was brought back to life.

Another friend (let's call him Tim) went on a missionary trip to India one spring break and saw several miracles personally, including at least one firsthand where he and a bunch of others prayed for a deaf man to be healed.  The man was healed on the spot.

Over this past Christmas break I went to a Christian conference that emphasized this sort of thing, and I attended a seminar they had on healing.  At the end the speakers said they felt like God wanted to heal some people, so they encouraged people to break into small groups and pray for each other.  Figuring it couldn't hurt to try, I asked some people to pray for my asthma.  Lo and behold, it was healed.

These are just the ones I remember offhand.  If you want more I could probably pass along a bunch of others given a day's worth of emailing.

Put it this way - I don't believe any of it.  Not that it didn't happen (well, maybe the demon things; anything that third hand I'd take with more than a pinch of salt, as well as the Israel thing - self fulfilling prophecy, that one), but that it could only be attributed to a miracle (especially when so much is 3rd hand; 'my friend Tim', 'Scott, who knew Sarah').  It depends what you look for, of course.  But, I mean, if you pick these as miracles, isn't there a fair number of things to contradict them?  Like, I remember a study that found that heart disease patients who know their family are praying for them have a reduced chance of survival.  You're citing a number of medical things, too; how much work on pre-and-post documentation and analysis was done.  Were they accepted as miracles immediately, or after months of investigation?  Are they actually medically impossible or improbable? 

My personal opinion is that I doubt they were inexplicable, which would be AFAIK the qualifier as a miracle.  But I don't have any data to really, fully speculate on your personal experiences. 

Are miracles easier to find once you find/convince yourself of the first?  How many prayers go unrewarded & why are miracles selective in that respect? How many miracles are even investigated? (as a side question; was this Sarahs' mother cured of that disease (that'd seem key) and how was death pronounced?)  Have you tested your (lack of) asthma in any way, had it cleared medically (I'd presume so if you're dad's a doctor, but still curious)?

I don't believe miracles occur.  I've never heard of anything investigated and provative of them, and the human mind is great at convining itself of things like this.  And until it can be proved, I won't accept it as a basis for applying a society-affecting restriction.

[Turambar]

Israel is heresy

the messiah was supposed to lead them back to the holy land, and the only people doing any leading around there are butchers and overall very bad people

[Eightball]

Ideas or beliefs don't have to be irrefutable to be applied to an entire country - we do it all the time.

[Goober5000]

A more sensible question would be, how do you know it was a christian god that made all those miracles (if indeed they are)?

Easy.  If you pray to the Christian God for a miracle, and it happens, I think it's safe to assume he did it.

Put it this way - I don't believe any of it.  Not that it didn't happen (well, maybe the demon things; anything that third hand I'd take with more than a pinch of salt, as well as the Israel thing - self fulfilling prophecy, that one), but that it could only be attributed to a miracle (especially when so much is 3rd hand; 'my friend Tim', 'Scott, who knew Sarah').

Yeah, but Tim and Scott are both good friends who have no reason to embellish or be dishonest about it - it would be completely out of character for them to do so.  And even if most of these are secondhand, the asthma healing is firsthand: it happened to me.  I had asthma before, and now I don't.

My personal opinion is that I doubt they were inexplicable, which would be AFAIK the qualifier as a miracle.  But I don't have any data to really, fully speculate on your personal experiences.

You don't have to speculate.  Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe?  You can believe me, and conclude that I'm telling the truth; or you can believe that I'm accurately reporting what I saw and chalk it up to one of science's unexplained mysteries.  Or you can call me a liar.  Your choice.

Are miracles easier to find once you find/convince yourself of the[m] first?

I would think they are.  Otherwise, when presented with a miracle, you would, by habit, always conclude that there must be some other explanation.

How many prayers go unrewarded & why are miracles selective in that respect?

That's a theological question.  The short answer is: I don't know.

How many miracles are even investigated?

Quite a lot of them.  Many, are, of course frauds, but the legitimate ones always stand up to scrutiny.  The problem with legitimate ones, though, is that many times a disbelieving investigator will state a priori that miracles do not happen and refuse to seriously examine it based on that justification.

(as a side question; was this Sarahs' mother cured of that disease (that'd seem key) and how was death pronounced?)

I would presume so; that question didn't come up.  As for how death was pronounced, it was by the attending physician who flat-out refused to re-examine her after she had come back to life.  I can email Scott for more details.

Have you tested your (lack of) asthma in any way, had it cleared medically (I'd presume so if you're dad's a doctor, but still curious)?

Well, it was established that I had asthma initially, as I had been going to see an asthma specialist for a year or two beforehand.  I haven't been back since, because those visits are expensive, but my mom (who is a nurse) concluded, based on my cough and the way I was breathing, that it had been cured.  My dad hasn't wanted to discuss it.

As for personal testing, I do that all the time, even now, because it's so remarkable that I can't fully believe it myself. I can breathe all the way in and all the way out, whereas before I could only breath partway before I "snagged" on something and started coughing.  And I can do exercise and sports without having to stop every few minutes to catch my breath, whereas I couldn't do that before.  Also, cold weather is particularly problematic for asthma sufferers, especially when combined with even light activity.  Now the very first thing I did after the seminar was run (three blocks, uphill, in 50 degree weather) to where the rest of my friends were having dinner, and I arrived without any problems whatsoever.  So that convinced me pretty firmly.

I don't believe miracles occur.  I've never heard of anything investigated and provative of them, and the human mind is great at convining itself of things like this.  And until it can be proved, I won't accept it as a basis for applying a society-affecting restriction.

The problem is that the human mind is great at convincing itself of all sorts of things, even when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts it.  It happens for people believing miracles that are fraudulent, but it also happens for people disbelieving miracles that are genuine.

[vyper]

[q]Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe?[/q]

No, but I refuse to accept that there are things science cannot eventually explain about the universe.

[Ghostavo]

A more sensible question would be, how do you know it was a christian god that made all those miracles (if indeed they are)?

Easy.  If you pray to the Christian God for a miracle, and it happens, I think it's safe to assume he did it.

Why? If there is a god, and he actually cares for what people do and think (and he is benevolent, which is somewhat confusing), one would think he would act on the intention of the prayer, not the religious dogma followed by the person praying.