Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 No, I don't think so. By definition, a life within the continuum must have the ability to evolve into the next stage of the continuum, if left in its present natural state. Your listed traits may be expected of humans at a certain developmental stage, but not necessary in earlier stages. Again, I think you are choosing to exclude complete beings (according to nature's design) that, if left in their natural state, will by force of nature reach "born" status (if allowed to proceed unfettered, of course). An embryo, in terms of nature's constructs, is a complete being, even if it still requires nurturing from its mother. The question, then, becomes whether that complete being qualifies as a human one. If it isn't, then what is it? An acorn has the potential to grow into a mighty tree Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 You know when Beltmann whips out the fisticuffs you got something serious here. : Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 An acorn has the potential to grow into a mighty tree Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 An acorn has the potential to grow into a mighty tree Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 No, I don't think so. By definition, a life within the continuum must have the ability to evolve into the next stage of the continuum, if left in its present natural state. Your listed traits may be expected of humans at a certain developmental stage, but not necessary in earlier stages. Again, I think you are choosing to exclude complete beings (according to nature's design) that, if left in their natural state, will by force of nature reach "born" status (if allowed to proceed unfettered, of course).An embryo, in terms of nature's constructs, is a complete being, even if it still requires nurturing from its mother. The question, then, becomes whether that complete being qualifies as a human one. If it isn't, then what is it? Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 You know when Beltmann whips out the fisticuffs you got something serious here. :No fisticuffs--I understand and respect ....'s perspective, and have even agreed with quite a few of his posts in this thread. It's just an interesting conversation. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 We are leaving out a very important piece of what makes us human Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 To you - the planet may "think" otherwise. Given that trees act as its lungs. Well, the planet should have thought of that before it evolved us. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Well, the planet should have thought of that before it evolved us. Perhap's it will have learned it's lesson once we are gone. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 They're both morally insignificant.So Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 it sounds too much like we cannot be trusted to make a rational decision.Perhaps I have overlooked how the history of mankind is, indeed, the history of rational behavior. The rational choice may be the 12 embryos, but faced with the emotions of the moment, I don't believe many humans would make the rational choice--just like no parent would ever let their own child die to save 12 strangers, despite that being the rational act. But how is this the most pressing aspect of my argument? More importantly, the Brewers are up 6-1 on the Cubs! I'm out. TV is calling. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Perhaps I have overlooked how the history of mankind is, indeed, the history of rational behavior. The rational choice may be the 12 embryos, but faced with the emotions of the moment, I don't believe many humans would make the rational choice--just like no parent would ever let their own child die to save 12 strangers, despite that being the rational act. But how is this the most pressing aspect of my argument? More importantly, the Brewers are up 6-1 on the Cubs! I'm out. TV is calling. Ugh Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 No, I just really hate acorns. Sarcasm, carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage. This is because sarcasm, entertaining as it is, serves an almost exclusively negative function. It's critical and destructive, a ground-clearing. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I can live with that. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I can live with that. For now - you may feel differently in 10 or so years. Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 nothing matters after 2012 man. it's all about the mayan calendar. the world's over. it's all done but for the crying. the end of the world is neigh. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Sarcasm, carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage. This is because sarcasm, entertaining as it is, serves an almost exclusively negative function. It's critical and destructive, a ground-clearing. Huh? Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 For now - you may feel differently in 10 or so years. Stop being so dramatic. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 They're both morally insignificant. If you dig up an acorn that is about to sprout, then, yes, that is an interruption of a natural course that would have resulted in a tree had you not artifically interfered. And if we as humans don't get worked up about that, well, it's because we assign a kind of sacred value only to human life--just like we don't equate the felling of a grown tree with the murder of a grown man. The irony here is - a tree is more signifigant to the overall Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Stop being so dramatic. Stop being so dismissive. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 if a dish of 12 embryos, a baby and an oak tree were in a building burning, which one would you save? Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 The building, if I could. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts