Evidence for God from Science

I don't see any logic in comparing cancer cells with embryo.
Embryo will not change into something else, not mutate into a different species or direction of cellular genesis.
Cancer is the mutation.
Show us Embryo can continue to form into anything but a human, and you might, might, have a reason to compare it to cancer.
The only cancer I recognize is the one spreading fast and vast in the human mind, that abortion is anything but cutting off a life, intentional murder.

ryanbouma wrote:So would you say abortion is wrong past say 4 months pregnancy? That seems well beyond the grey line to me.

So...really, in the first place, one would always hope that every actual pregnancy was a wonderful, joyous affair of the family etc.

Unfortunately, we know real life has a way of screwing things over and this is not always the case.

I've not been arguing specifically 'for' or 'against' during the whole thread. I was simply trying to understand people's wanting to save bundles of cells...

Glad you see my points.

much cheers to all.

Mallz wrote:I don't see any logic in comparing cancer cells with embryo.

Because...at the very early stages...a blastocyte is little more than a partially differentiating clump of cancerous like cells. Something randomly moving through the woman's body looking for a place to latch on and begin draining nutrients from the host.

Mallz wrote:Embryo will not change into something else, not mutate into a different species or direction of cellular genesis.

Well...yes, actually. A blastocyte will turn into an embryo/fetus/etc.

Mallz wrote:Cancer is the mutation. Show us Embryo can continue to form into anything but a human, and you might, might, have a reason to compare it to cancer.
The only cancer I recognize is the one spreading fast and vast in the human mind, that abortion is anything but cutting off a life, intentional murder.

I've never been talking about embryos though. Almost all of my comments have been in regards to blastocytes etc. Sometimes the developing young doesn't fall into the tubes and manages to develop outside of the place it was intended, with dire consequences involved when this happens. How is this not similar to cancer developing?

Your last comment seems to indicate that at conception 'blam' human appears.... This I find strange. What, then, is/are your takes on other preventative measures? Things that are/can be done to prevent the lil' wriggly and big half cell getting together in the first place?

Much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:

RickD wrote:But there is a "clear line". It's painfully simple actually. Before conception=no life. The moment of conception=new human life has begun.

So...if the immediate bundle of cells upon conception is 'Human life'...why/how can we remove cancer cells?

Also....what about all the myriad ties when even after fertilization, the blastocyte does not survive?

Much cheers to all.

You are comparing a human being to cancer cells? I don't get it. Cancer is removed because it is malignant.

Blastocyst? We are talking about intentional abortion, aren't we.

The scientific fact is that at the moment of conception, a new life has begun. Period.

Thadeyus:

Because...at the very early stages...a blastocyte is little more than a partially differentiating clump of cancerous like cells. Something randomly moving through the woman's body looking for a place to latch on and begin draining nutrients from the host.

It's not random movement, nor a random place. The 'draining' of nutrients will be directly related to the strategic intake of food and types of foods the woman eats as the fertilization continues to birth. It's not a parasite.

Cancer is abnormal cell growth that is advantageous of itself in its victim, mainly caused by environmental factors. The rest through hereditary genetics, a mutation on the DNA train.

Mallz wrote:Embryo will not change into something else, not mutate into a different species or direction of cellular genesis.
Thadeyus: Well...yes, actually. A blastocyte will turn into an embryo/fetus/etc.

The instruction of fertilization to cleavage to blastulation to implantation to gastrulation to neurulation to.. you get the point.
A Blastocyte is on a path that is instructed, determined and intended. What I meant to say, is that the 46 chromosomes and DNA sequences that make this 'clump of cells' unique is on the predictable and instructed pathway to a unique born individual, already unique in genesis. It's not a random clump of cells, is nothing inherently relatable to cancer, it will not ever be 'not human'.
It amazes me that there's an argument of whether or not abortion is murder. The intentional stop in a life. This is what is happening, there is no way around it.

T:

I've never been talking about embryos though. Almost all of my comments have been in regards to blastocytes etc. Sometimes the developing young doesn't fall into the tubes and manages to develop outside of the place it was intended, with dire consequences involved when this happens. How is this not similar to cancer developing?

Do you know what causes ectopic pregnancies? Most of the causes have to do with outside factors influencing the reproductive system. When an ectopic pregnancy does occur, it's the continuation of what the Blastocycte is instructed to do. Which leads to rupture and massive hemorrhage then death. So in the sense that it's mainly outside forces of the body causing ectopic pregnancies, there is a relation to cancer.

Mr. T

Your last comment seems to indicate that at conception 'blam' human appears.... This I find strange. What, then, is/are your takes on other preventative measures? Things that are/can be done to prevent the lil' wriggly and big half cell getting together in the first place?

Conception--> Blam! Unique human life created.

I don't see anything wrong with the use of condoms. I see it as being responsible. But those who use contraceptives decide to not take responsibility for the obvious reactions of their action, as if because they were trying to avoid a pregnancy now gives them the O.K. to kill a human they created. So I think contraceptives are dangerous, on our society mentally. Also physical, non-damaging or non-body (hormonal) changing forms of contraception I don't see a problem with. One of the high risk factors for ectopic pregnancies is the use of an IUD. A bit ironic, huh?

Here is the logical issue that is being avoided by those like Thad.

Outside of "human life" -- and let's not try to blur what this scientifically means which is a biological entity who possesses their own individual DNA and will grow and develop as a human would unless they die -- there is no other classification one can impose that can not be equally imposed upon born people.

And this is why sadly philosophers like Peter Singer and those I mentioned earlier (and they're by no means the only ones) believe it is fine to take the life of an infant. The quote I believe ryan was thinking of earlier may have been originally Singer's in his Practical Ethics who wrote: "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons... the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Sadly, rather than Singer giving the status of the unborn inherent value in virtue of their human nature, Singer downgrades the status of even born human life to support infanticide. The dividing line is self awareness. Why? I don't know. Seems rather ambiguous to me. But this too means there are many children and adults who would no longer qualify to have a right to life who are in a coma, on life support, or perhaps mentally incapacitated to the point they appear to be no longer aware to their own existence. Even perhaps people knocked out?

This is the reason why more and more liberal ethicists and philosophers support not just abortion, but infanticide. I believe there is no good reason, and stick to "human life" being the crucial aspect. Not cancer cells, not human blood in a syringe, but a biological entity who possesses their own individual DNA and will grow and develop as a human would unless they are killed or die.

Now one can choose to draw personal distinctions that have no real relevance to try and support killing an unborn human life... though I vehemently oppose Singer I can't knock his logical consistency in applying what he feels is an intrinsic part of why humans are valuable.

I feel I must voice my disagreement with yours and RickD's useage of words.

Infants are not, as it were, people. Nor are children. Nor are Teenagers (A term which only came into relative use/existence after the First World War, I believe. Before that there was no 'slow' transition from childhood to adult hood. But a quick change from Schooling to working.)

Infant, children and teenagers cannot vote. Cannot hold a great many licensees etc. Are considered the effective 'property' of their parents and all for good reasons.

That people on the board are quite happy to slap-dash around their words is slightly annoying.

My excuse for lack of definite word use is my relative lack of education. Having only completed Year Twelve in my counties schooling system. Everything after that has been self taught and study. (Which is nothing fancy at all)

So...just on those points we can see that 'Human' life has different values, meanings etc.

Very much cheers to all.

"Infants are not, as it were, people. Nor are children. Nor are Teenagers"



No wonder we're having so much difficulty understanding each other or reaching some common ground.

Forgive me if I here slap-dash around my words, but I seriously disagree with you. Don't mean to be rude, but really pray you never reach a position of power unless your beliefs change. Seriously.

Children and babies in my opinion are the most innocent of people and ought to be the most valued and cherished.

Mr. T:

Infants are not, as it were, people. Nor are children. Nor are Teenagers (A term which only came into relative use/existence after the First World War, I believe. Before that there was no 'slow' transition from childhood to adult hood. But a quick change from Schooling to working.)

What is a person?
peo·ple
[pee-puhl] Show IPA
noun, plural peo·ples for 4.
1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2.persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3.human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4.the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5.the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.

Just so you didn't have to look it up... What is your subjective, un-collective definition of people?

Thadeyus:

Infant, children and teenagers cannot vote. Cannot hold a great many licensees etc. Are considered the effective 'property' of their parents and all for good reasons.

Governments, and decent ones, hold their parents responsible for the rearing of their children. Children are their 'responsibility', or 'property', not the governments. Then we have 'adults' which changes from country to country depending on when one is tried as an adult, which you then get the rights to not be your 'parents' property, but really the governments and can partake in its evolution through voting (right... ). Societal perspectives of people, have been that children are the most valuable. As your society will cease if you have no children. It's evolutionary, it's political, it's unique to anything that breeds.

By the way, the brain doesn't stop growing until your early 20's, technically everyone under is a child mentally. Just Because they're over 18 (like here to be an adult) does not mean they really are one, and have really come to grasps and understanding about our world and selves and actions and reactions.

The T man:

My excuse for lack of definite word use is my relative lack of education. Having only completed Year Twelve in my counties schooling system. Everything after that has been self taught and study. (Which is nothing fancy at all)
So...just on those points we can see that 'Human' life has different values, meanings etc.

The only different values given to human life is coming from a subjective stance. Who has more value? Ask different people, different countries, different times of history and you get all different answers. 3 things remain stable however, children are valued for the continuation of a civilization, woman were protected to rear the continuation, and there only has to be a few guys to keep it going.

Kurieuo:

No wonder we're having so much difficulty understanding each other or reaching some common ground.

I think we have our answer. It's the difference between subjective and objective morality. If morals are subjective, morality no longer exists. There is no right or wrong. But if there was no right or wrong, then why do people who live in subjective morality get mad when someone mugs them? Why should anyone protect them? Whey should anyone find the mugger? Why should police exist? Subjective morality is chaos, lack of a society. Whoever is the strongest, fastest, wittiest, whatever, wins.

But morals do exist, they're observable throughout society and history. The lingering remnants of God's grace perhaps?

Thadeyus wrote:Infants are not, as it were, people. Nor are children. Nor are Teenagers.

AWESOME! THANKS FOR THE NEW SIG!

Kurieuo wrote:"Infants are not, as it were, people. Nor are children. Nor are Teenagers"



No wonder we're having so much difficulty understanding each other or reaching some common ground.

Forgive me if I here slap-dash around my words, but I seriously disagree with you. Don't mean to be rude, but really pray you never reach a position of power unless your beliefs change. Seriously.

Children and babies in my opinion are the most innocent of people and ought to be the most valued and cherished.

Um...you really missed my point. Y'know that, right?

I also might understand why certain countries leaders act the way they do given the juvenile behavior I see reported.

Much cheers to all.

Mallz wrote:peo·ple
[pee-puhl] Show IPA
noun, plural peo·ples for 4.
1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2.persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3.human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4.the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5.the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.

Just so you didn't have to look it up... What is your subjective, un-collective definition of people?

Thanks.

Mallz wrote:Governments, and decent ones, hold their parents responsible for the rearing of their children. Children are their 'responsibility', or 'property', not the governments. Then we have 'adults' which changes from country to country depending on when one is tried as an adult, which you then get the rights to not be your 'parents' property, but really the governments and can partake in its evolution through voting (right... ). Societal perspectives of people, have been that children are the most valuable. As your society will cease if you have no children. It's evolutionary, it's political, it's unique to anything that breeds.

By the way, the brain doesn't stop growing until your early 20's, technically everyone under is a child mentally. Just Because they're over 18 (like here to be an adult) does not mean they really are one, and have really come to grasps and understanding about our world and selves and actions and reactions.

Yup, I was pretty much saying that. Hence why kids don't vote etc.

Mallz wrote:The only different values given to human life is coming from a subjective stance. Who has more value? Ask different people, different countries, different times of history and you get all different answers. 3 things remain stable however, children are valued for the continuation of a civilization, woman were protected to rear the continuation, and there only has to be a few guys to keep it going.

Kurieuo:

No wonder we're having so much difficulty understanding each other or reaching some common ground.

I think we have our answer. It's the difference between subjective and objective morality. If morals are subjective, morality no longer exists. There is no right or wrong. But if there was no right or wrong, then why do people who live in subjective morality get mad when someone mugs them? Why should anyone protect them? Whey should anyone find the mugger? Why should police exist? Subjective morality is chaos, lack of a society. Whoever is the strongest, fastest, wittiest, whatever, wins.

But morals do exist, they're observable throughout society and history. The lingering remnants of God's grace perhaps?

And said morals have changed over time etc. Hence why in only a few decades we now don't segregate folks etc.

Thadeyus wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:So would you say abortion is wrong past say 4 months pregnancy? That seems well beyond the grey line to me.

So...really, in the first place, one would always hope that every actual pregnancy was a wonderful, joyous affair of the family etc.

Unfortunately, we know real life has a way of screwing things over and this is not always the case.

Ok so raising a 2 year old I would always hope is a joyous affair of the family, but if it's not, if the kid is a pain the butt and my wife wants to leave me, I can kill the child to restore happiness to the family?

This is a bad argument for immorality. It's the same as saying, my neighbour annoyed me so I murdered him. Can't you see judge? He was so annoying. I just had to kill him. His rights are less important than my enjoyment of life.

So when is it ok to abort the baby when the mother is having a bad day? 4 months pregnancy? 8 months pregnancy ok? Maybe a couple weeks after birth ok? How about a 2 year old? How bad of a day does the mother have to have to make it ok? Cause in Canada, it's just her choice, no criteria needed. It's her body and her right: to kill.

I don't want anyone to make the abortion issue something of objective vs relative morality.

I don't want anyone to make the abortion issue something about Atheists versus Christians or religion (as Thad appears to have done).

Rather, the abortion issue is about basic human rights. About us born humans being "humane" rather than "inhumane". It is about biology and science.

Here are some Atheists that are not fools:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZqY0p-QZ6k[/youtube]

Kurieuo wrote: Third, it seems clear to me that you are not really wanting to learn. For you write in one post about not caring about my beliefs which you asked for. If you cared, you'd not so quickly try to knock what you believe to already know. I rarely find what I'd consider well-mannered and intelligent non-Christians posting here. Most of them leave once they have their fun playing foolhardy games. BGoodForGoodSake was an older poster I really respected. Ivellious, who I know equally finds me as annoying at times as perhaps you do, nonetheless keeps his composure perhaps better than I and has contributed much to this board as a non-Christian.

Glad to see I am remembered