SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (65608)2/7/2000 2:16:00 AM
From: miraje  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
You know, this discussion has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Sanity, maybe. (LOL) Is there a thread on SI that would be more appropriate? Oh well, since we're here...

Then as far as I'm concerned, that qualifies as a point.

Point taken.

But here, concerning abortion, I do not speak from mere opinion. I speak from fact. The point at which a distinct human organism begins to send itself forward, participating in the carbon cycle, can be precisely determined.

Yes, at the moment of conception, most fertilized eggs do begin the process of developing into human beings. That is a fact. The point at which the dividing cells (potential) become a human being (actual) is an opinion, like it or not.

The point at which human life begins is beyond logical dispute.

Sorry, but it's not.

but the fact is, all humans exist, develop and self-promote even before they acquire a brain.

A fetus does exist and develop (in the majority of cases), but self-promotion implies active cognitive direction and is the wrong choice of words in this context, IMO.

All their thinking and feeling is predicated upon their naturally self-promoting essence.

In other words, the "I" which thinks and feels.

Here is where fundamental humanity is found. This is the fundamental nature of man, and it is utterly contradicted by the peculiarly murderous sin known as "abortion." This is why abortion is a sin against nature.

That "I" that now thinks and feels, existed before it thought and felt. Its natural trajectory caused it to move through time even without thought, such that it could one day take thoughts and feeling in hand and then continue on with its journey of promoting itself outside the womb.


That an "I" can exist before the brain (thoughts and feelings) develops or after it dies is pure conjecture. One can believe it, based upon faith, but not prove or disprove it, based upon science. I strongly doubt it, personally, but will eventually find out (or not find out, as the case may be) when my time comes. :-)

Instead you ought to humbly bow down to the Force that mysteriously brings them forth.

Why humbly bow down? I'd rather stand on my feet and strive to solve mysteries with an open mind.

Again, the earthly fact of the matter is that humans promote themselves as separate entities long before their thoughts come into play. We cannot logically just claim them rocks or cabbages or nothings merely because they have not yet acquired arms, legs and brains. The fact they strive to exist, as we do, and derive their biological identities directly from us, logically compels us to accept them as extensions of ourselves.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. A developing fetus is exactly what it is, not a rock or a cabbage.

But the fact is, the striving, self-promoting essence of human organisms exists long before their brains develop. Indeed, it is this very essence that causes brains and feelings and thoughts to arise.

Whoops, not fact. Opinion. Unless you mean (which I don't think you do) the genetically directed cell divisions that usually result (except when errors occur) in a human being.

I had hoped you would not become distracted by my wording. I feared my attempts to clarify would perhaps have made the thing even more muddled than it was.

Ah, clarity. Now that's something that I can worship. (grin)

We ought not make cognition the measure of man, for we do it at the peril of millions.

I don't. What you've got is far less important than what you do with what you do have. (Does that make any sense?)