There are three foundational questions in the debate about abortion.
- Does a right to life even exist for anyone?
- If it does exist, how and when is the right to life conferred to an individual?
- Are there instances where a person’s choice has more value than another person’s right to their own life?
I believe that the first question is largely non-controversial in this debate. Most individuals recognize the right to life for humans beginning at birth and ending at natural death. Thus, I will tacitly assume that the answer to the first question is “yes, humans do enjoy a right to life.” However, I want to examine the second question in some detail, for that is one of the crucial divides. The third question, although very important, will not be dealt with at this time. However, a few posts here by other bloggers have touched on this very important issue.
Argument for the Right to Life from Conception
A deductive argument that humans possess the right to life from conception is given below:
P1. If the right to life is an intrinsic property of humans and human life begins at conception, then humans possess the right to life from conception.
P2. The right to life is an intrinsic property of humans.
P3. Human life begins at conception.
C. Humans possess the right to life from conception.
P2. The right to life is an intrinsic property of humans.
P3. Human life begins at conception.
C. Humans possess the right to life from conception.
A good argument has two essential features. First, the argument must be sound. This argument follows the general argument type known as modus ponens, which is a valid form of argumentation in classical logic. Second, the premises of the argument must be more plausible than their negations. If an argument satisfies these two criteria, then the consequent of the argument cannot be rationally denied. For that reason, we should examine the three premises in greater detail.
The First Premise
I do not think the first premise is controversial. If the right to life is an intrinsic property of a living human (see below for a discussion of the meaning of this term) and human life can be shown to begin at conception, then it is reasonable to affirm that humans possess the right to life from conception. A defense of intrinsic rights and the beginning of human life will be provided below.
The Second Premise
An intrinsic right is taken to be an essential property of the person. Intrinsic rights are differentiated from other “rights” such as the right to vote, the right to drive a car, etc. Those “rights” are better termed privileges, which are non-essential properties of a person. Unfortunately, our language has muddled these two issues up, leading people to conflate the right to life with the right to drink a beer. The two are not on the same level.
Most people have no trouble recognizing that all humans have an intrinsic right to life after birth. The idea is clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and is the philosophical bedrock for the legal definition of murder. Furthermore, most people do not have any problem identifying situations in the past or in contemporary cultures where this right is violated for some individuals or groups of individuals. Indeed, one need look no further than the Nazi Holocaust, the Cambodian killing fields, or slavery in the American South for poignant examples. The sticking point comes when we examine the rights of humans before birth.
Defenders of a pro-abortion stance argue that rights should be conferred after the fetus either reaches a specific point in development (e.g., nervous system development, point of viability, birth, etc.) or acquires a minimal set of attributes. This topic takes us deep into moral relativism, and this short blog cannot possibly give a full and adequate treatment of the subject. Suffice it to say, the list of attributes or point in development typically differs from person to person; hence, it is impossible to argue against specific examples. It is important, however, to ask why we should accept any one set of criteria once they are proposed. There is no agreement as to what developmental characteristics mark the fetus as a person requiring rights nor is there a clear set of attributes that is universally accepted. This is a serious problem for those who espouse a functional definition of life. As an example, the bioethicist Peter Singer has famously championed infanticide of disabled infants and non-voluntary euthanasia of “people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.” Most pro-abortion defenders balk at this suggestion, but why should we not accept Singer’s criteria? Likewise, there is no convincing reason why we must accept any functional point (such as birth) as the unique point at which life begins and rights are conferred to the baby.
A secondary issue with functional definitions of life is that those definitions are notoriously difficult to contain. A clearly defined list of characteristics that determine when rights are conferred to a human is only useful if it can be applied to all people. For example, suppose we accept the idea that a properly functioning central nervous system is a/the criterion for the right to life to be conferred. It is not at all clear why the following scenarios are not morally acceptable based on this criterion:
- Terminating the life a person who is under a powerful anesthetic or in a coma.
- Killing a person who is a quadriplegic.
- Relegating a person who has suffered a debilitating stroke and lost feeling in half of their body as a second-class citizen simply because they do not retain functionality of a complete nervous system.
This takes us to the real crux of the issue. If human rights are merely something that we invent and develop, then there really is no such thing as a right to life for anyone at any time. This means looking back in time and passing judgment against slave owners, the apartheid, those sanctioning the Cambodian killing fields, or the Holocaust, to name a few, is ultimately incoherent. Who are we to pass judgment on what another person thinks is right concerning killing another person or in some way treating them as a means rather than an end, if people do not possess any rights? The problem is that people don’t live like that, and we know it. People have no trouble recognizing slavery as a clear example where an entire culture endorsed the dehumanization of people purely for pigment levels in their skin. However, if rights are a function of some qualities defined by a culture, then it is irrational to claim American slavery is immoral for those individuals practicing and endorsing it. This is the inevitable conclusion of the subjective morality that is driving the pro-abortion movement to define unborn babies as non-human. Thus, if the pro-abortion advocates want to embrace the negation of premise one, they seem to have a very heavy burden to shoulder in demonstrating that one individual (or culture) may pass judgment on another individual (or culture) in the absence of intrinsic rights. Furthermore, they have the difficult task of establishing when rights are conferred and for what reasons.
A better approach is to confer rights based on the ontology of the person. Humans are unique and deserve basic rights because God has implanted His image within them. This grounds fetal rights based on what it is – a special creation of God worthy of protection – as opposed to some complex of attributes that it gains and may lose at some later point in life. Therefore, we can provide a theological argument to support affirming the first premise.
P1’: Humans should not be unjustifiably killed because humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26; 9:6).
P2’: If the image of God is imputed to people at fertilization, then abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.
P3’: The image of God is present from conception.
C’: Abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.
P2’: If the image of God is imputed to people at fertilization, then abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.
P3’: The image of God is present from conception.
C’: Abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.
Of course, some argue that the image of God is not imputed at fertilization. However, I think there is compelling scriptural support that people possess the image of God from the moment life begins. The most notable is the virginal conception of Jesus Christ.
The Third Premise
Arguing against the third premise flies in the face of the numerous scientific discoveries about human development as well as a basic definition of what life is. The Penguin Dictionary of Biology provides an excellent, concise definition of biological life:
“[Living organisms are] complex physico-chemical systems whose two main peculiarities are (1) storage and replication of molecular information in the form of nucleic acid, and (2) the presence of (or in viruses perhaps merely the potential for) enzyme catalysis.”
This definition unequivocally places a fertilized egg as a living organism. Furthermore, the moment of fertilization is marked by the slow block to polyspermy, which is a series of biochemical processes that limit the number of sperm that may penetrate the oocyte to one. This provides a clear point in time marking the formation of a new organism with its own unique life trajectory.
Adding additional criteria to the definition of life is a grave mistake that can lead to bizarre and absurd conclusions. For example, some pro-abortion advocates claim that a fetus requires a functioning nervous system to be alive. By this definition, however, all unicellular organisms would fail to qualify as alive. If one goes a step further and requires a functioning central nervous system, then a much larger swath of organisms, such as plants and fungi, may be relegated to the realm of the non-living. Similar absurdities result with other “definitions” of life. It is far more plausible to agree with modern science and affirm premise three rather than its negation.
So What Does All of This Mean?
A simple argument demonstrating that humans possess a right to life from conception was presented. It was further argued that each premise is more plausible than the corresponding negation. Thus, the conclusion of argument cannot logically be avoided. Murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent human. If the argument goes through, then what else would you call an abortion? Certainly the unborn baby is innocent. Abortion is legal in the US, but that does not make abortion any less immoral. Is lawfully killing a spouse in country where such actions are legal moral for those people? Clearly not! The law is in error and must be changed.
"conception of Jesus Christ" umm if you haven't heard that's been changed..the Hebrew word was "young woman" not virgin
ReplyDeleteGenesis 2:7, ‘And the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground, and BREATHED into his nostrils the BREATH of LIFE' Fetus don't breathe
There is no mention of a baby, child, embryo, fetus or anything else except MAN and WOMEN in Genesis.In fact there is no mention about abortion in the bible other than the ones God performs.Numbers, Chapter 5, Verses 20-27, “But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband. Here the priest is to put the woman under this curse “may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”
ReplyDeleteAnd God in the Bible told Adam and Eve they had "Dominion' over the earth.
When someone asks you how old you are, do you add 9 months to that? When you ask how long someone LIVED, you count from the day he was born to the day he died, not when he was conceived.
A sperm and and egg are Also LIVING ORGANISMS, without out them you have....NOTHING
Genisis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
It is not clear what you are intending to argue by pointing out that the Hebrew word translated to virgin is also translated as young woman in the Bible. Are you saying that when human beings are only conceived within young women and not virgins. Hmm? Maybe you could explain yourself a little further there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what does the creation of the first man, Adam, have to do with the biological conception of human beings after Adam.
And, how is that verse connected to your final statement of "Fetus don't breathe." (First off, you must mean "fetuses don't breathe the air outside of the womb as you and I do" Surely you are aware of the fact that Fetuses do breath beginning at around the 12th week of their prenatal development. Their respiratory systems have begun development by the end of the 9th. If you don't know this, you can learn about it in Moore and Persaud’s "The Developing Human", Larsen’s "Human Embryology," Carlson’s "Human Embryology & Developmental Biology", and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s "Human Embryology & Teratology."
Please share with us further what your statements are intended to express or argue? They may have looked like zingers to you, but it is not really all that clear whether they are even relevant to this post.
For mr. and ms. anonymous up there, here is what wikipedia says about the word Almah:
ReplyDelete"Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman and children born to an almah would be illegitimate. The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means "an unmarried girl (especially a virgin)."
Think of it this way. Do you really think the prophecy given to Isaiah was that a young woman would have a baby? That is quite a remarkable prophecy, not. The specificity with which prophecies are made throughout the OT would not be consistent with a broad claim like "a young woman is going to have a baby."
Nothing was changed.
Wow Chemist, I am impressed by the quality of the argument that you have laid out. I hope people will take the time to read it and understand it rather than letting their emotions get in the way.
ReplyDeleteand wow anonymous, I am equally impressed with your ability to change the subject and throw a statement out there without giving us any evidence. Check out how the word is used throughout the OT and then check out the Greek word in the New Testament. http://www.awordfromtheword.org/virgin.htm
and wow again to your complete misrepresentation of Genesis 2:7. Why don't you go look up the meanings for the word "breath" in Hebrew and find out that it means also "spirit". It clearly is not talking about actual breathing of air but rather the "spirit" part of man (this is part of being in God's image, having a spirit that is)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5397
There is no mention of a baby, child, embryo, fetus or anything else except MAN and WOMEN in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteI assume you meant Genesis 1-2? Otherwise that's just completely fallacious.
What's your point?
In fact there is no mention about abortion in the bible
No mention of pedophilia either. Shall we make that legal as well?
other than the ones God performs.Numbers, Chapter 5, Verses 20-27, “But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband. Here the priest is to put the woman under this curse “may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”
abortion =/= miscarriage. Try again.
And God in the Bible told Adam and Eve they had "Dominion' over the earth.
eh? Your point being.... what exactly?
When someone asks you how old you are, do you add 9 months to that? When you ask how long someone LIVED, you count from the day he was born to the day he died, not when he was conceived.
That would be the common usage, yes. How is this an argument?
A sperm and and egg are Also LIVING ORGANISMS, without out them you have....NOTHING
Neither has a complete set of human DNA, so they are not living human persons. Don't be intentionally dense.
Genisis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So a poetic description of how the first man became a living being is now the paradigm for when all life begins? God breathed life into a non-living entitity and it became alive. How is this in anyway parallel to today? Make an argument.
A sperm and and egg are Also LIVING ORGANISMS, without out them you have....NOTHING
ReplyDeleteNeither has a complete set of human DNA, so they are not living human persons. DON'T BE INTENTIONALLY DENSE
Matt, that is my fav response out of the whole thing. (although your other responses are also great)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIs your point that babies become human with the right to life when they take there first breath? So does that mean in your opinion when the baby comes out of the womb and does not breath (often until the nurse clears its airway or pats in on the back) that it does not have a right to life? Or if it is being strangulated by the umbilical chord it is perfectly acceptable to allow the strangulation to continue, since it hasnt breathed yet you know?
Not trying to be too mean here, but I feel like adding Anonymous and Kat's comments to the "Acrostic Guide to Prochoice Logic and Biology":
ReplyDeletehttp://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/2011/04/acrostic-guide-to-prochoice-logic.html
"Numbers, Chapter 5, Verses 20-27, “But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband. Here the priest is to put the woman under this curse “may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.” "
ReplyDeleteKAT!!! This is the second time you posted this text to the blog with the same argument. I can't say I am shocked. First off, It is not problem for God to curse someone for committing adultery and that curse be a barren womb or a miscarriage. God gives life and God takes life. Secondly, the meaning of this text is a bit unclear. If you do a little research you will find that this NIV is one of the only translations that uses the word miscarry, the rest use "thigh fall off" or "thigh wastes away". Its kind of weird. Nevertheless, if the word should be rendered miscarry it is no problem at all for God or the consistency of our argument.
Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma
ReplyDelete"Are you saying that when human beings are only conceived within young women and not virgins. Hmm? Maybe you could explain yourself a little further there."
I'm not sure what his question means either, are you saying virgins can get pregnant? Because if you are, I need to go no further, because someone has to tell you the facts of life FIRST.
You used the statement "The most notable is the virginal conception of Jesus Christ." I was just correcting you
When the scriptures were translated to Greek then English several words were miss translated according to many authorites on the subject including the church & biblical scolars .'Bethulah' In hebrew means virgin in the sense that we understand it. It was used, for example, in Isaiah 62:5. 'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman.'a woman of marrying age' It was again mistranslated in Matthew 1:18
" Fetuses do breath beginning at around the 12th week of their prenatal development'
Again I think you need some lessons on the facts of life, a fetus is floating in Amniotic fluid, if they "breathed", they drown
Definition for breathe is ~to take air, oxygen
The rest of You no comment~ to rediculous religious supersticious nonsence
False.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of Breathing is not just "to take in air, oxygen." Breathing is the process that moves air in and out of the lungs. The mechanism of breathing changes after birth. That little slap the doctor or nurse gives the baby gets the little fella going.
Kat,
ReplyDeleteWhen the scriptures were translated to Greek then English several words were miss translated according to many authorites on the subject including the church & biblical scolars
Did you know an argument from authority is a logical fallacy?
'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman.'a woman of marrying age' It was again mistranslated in Matthew 1:18
Your utter and complete failure to interact with any of the arguments to the contrary which were presented to you is very telling. (see John Wesley above).
Here's a biblical scholar:
×¢ַלְמָ×” - young woman, i.e., sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active (Ge 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:26[EB 25]; Pr 30:19; SS 1:3; 6:8; Isa 7:14+), note: context will demand or suggest if the young woman is sexually active,
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
The context of Is. 7:14 is that a sign from God to validate his promises. How is a "young woman" conceiving a sign? That happens all the time! It's like God saying, "here's how you know my promise is about to come true: a tree will have green leaves." What kind of sign is that? Translating it as "young woman" does not fit the context.
Your ignorance on this issue is astounding, I recommend you try another avenue of attack.
The rest of You no comment~ to rediculous religious supersticious nonsence
I notice you ignored everything I said to you earlier. Who's being ridiculous?
I'll let the others deal with the rest of your comment.
Besides, most of this Virgin Birth discussion is a complete red herring. Any ProChoicer wish to interact with the substance of the OP?
ReplyDeleteYou guys reference wikipedia more than any site claiming to have these philosophical/intellectual arguments. I read once that Denzel Washington was running for president with Sinbad as the vice. That's how much credibility I give to wikipedia, and to those that use it to back arguments.
ReplyDeleteA logical argument is only as valid as the premises you put in it. Your “modus ponens” structures is solid, (if inefficient) but you give your premises as facts down to the very terms in which you've presented them. The problem is, your wording isn't clear at all, and you've manipulated the rhetoric so that they can't be question without bringing the questioner under moral attack.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by “intrinsic” and “intrinsic rights.” How can an abstract, inorganic concept such as “rights” be intrinsic to a biological organism? Not even Thomas Jefferson and, as far as I could tell, Thomas Paine said rights were intrinsic. Jefferson said “unalienable,” meaning, even if you're an atheist, that if they were were alienated, you could fight the alienators and expect allies to help you. That's exactly what happened.
If rights are intrinsic, it means if you've “alienated” them from a person, then from that act alone you've either killed them or you've made them morphologically into a different species. Either way, this expresses a belief in black magic and it can't possibly be what you mean.
Also, what is meant by “Human life begins at conception?” The sperm and egg cells are human. Since the life is human before, during and after conception, what can this possibly mean? Do you mean genetically complete? Yes, two sets of genes have just met and started to cooperate, but it doesn't have a trillionth the number of genes it needs to survive, which is why it starts reproducing and making changes as fast as possible. Then it can twin becoming two individuals, which means that a unique human life did not begin at conception.
What you've presented here is nothing but moral relativism. Your choice is on when a human being begins is not more logical than choosing any other point. You just put God's name on the choice you're pretending not to make, just as kings once did to Divine Right before Jefferson corrected them with the concept of unalienable rights. Unlike Divine Right, there's nothing Biblical to support life beginning at conception, which adds moral dishonesty to your relativism. To paraphrase you, there's no convincing reason you've given why a zygote is a human being with rights. Birth is a much more compelling argument on the facts. Neural function is a more compelling argument. Viability falls someplace in between. Conception is dead last.
You point out that opinions vary other than at conception that without agreement on conception, nobody can agree. But this is a tautology that applies to every other opinion on the subject. One could also say that if you don't agree with birth being the beginning of a human being, then nobody can agree on whether it's at conception, neuro-maturity or viability. I'll add that there probably would be consensus as to when a fetus is too close to being a person to allow abortion if so much time and energy weren't committed to fighting people like yourself who think it ought to be at conception.
As for the “slippery slope” issues, or as you put it, “those definitons are notoriously hard to contain,” there's a huge difference between a fetus and all the examples you've given from Singers work, differences big enough to trump any similarities. People who are unconscious, have had strokes, who've become old, or who are just sleeping, these are people who either exist or have existed as persons who have gained consciousness prior. There is no slippery slope to this. I'll underscore this point by saying of all the genocides, death camps and mass killings in the 20th century, none started with legalized abortion. None. In fact, the Nazis were extremely anti-abortion. Plenty of countries have legalized discretionary abortion since, and of those, none have slipped into genocidal acts or mass euthanasia programs. None. So, not only is there no logical connection, there is no practical connection. None. Yet here you are advocating the prevention of abortion, something that would have stopped no other genocide, no other act of euthanasia, and wouldn't stop it today.
ReplyDeleteYou've overlooked the fact that there are other compelling reasons besides nerve function to respect rights-- once a person is in the world and is unconsciously acknowledged as human being, we put them into a totally different category than a fetus, which is why we mark their lives with a birth certificate (not a conception certificate) and a death certificate. Once a person is actually there, then his or her peers and in response, society, has a different set of human emotions and motives which are expressed in the form of “rights.”
These emotions and motives simply aren't evoked by a fetus, and so you're not going to make rights apply to fetuses. You definitely aren't going to get people to care enough to fill out conception certificates except as a fad, and that's what you would need to legally give it rights.
“Most people have no trouble recognizing that all humans have an intrinsic right to life after birth. The idea is clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and is the philosophical bedrock for the legal definition of murder.”
Really? Nobody was ever charged with murder before the Declaration of Independence? Or did people have a legal definition for it for ten millennium before they had a philosophical bedrock? How did Greek philosophers make such an oversight? Really, if that's the philosophical basis, how is it that people were charged for thousands of years without ever articulating individual rights? Now only that, Jefferson wasn't clear. All he said was that among the unalienable rights he was talking about were the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He also didn't make a logical argument about it. He simply declared it, moral relativist that he was.
Also, I thought your philosophical basis against murder was that it usurps God's right to take somebodies life when He wishes. Or was that argument just not convenient to your relativist moral argument then? Or maybe it's both and you can't decide?
ReplyDeleteYou argue that human rights can't be simply invented because they're otherwise not guaranteed. I'll put this argument-form in a different context: “If there's no Santa Claus, then I won't get any toys.” You should have no problem seeing here that believing in Santa Claus even more isn't going to help. I'll point out that kids get toys at Christmas without Santa Claus. So, in other words, both arguments are not valid by their form.
If we believe rights are invented or not has no relevance to whether they are, in reality, invented. I think you'll agree with that. So, by your argument above (about rights or Santa Claus), either somebody's belief in them means more than the reality of their actual existence. In that case, the reality of their existence does nothing anyway, and their existence is irrelevant; or they don't exist but the self-deception will make us act like they do. I don't see how you can like the implications of either of these. I definitely don't.
We can do very well respecting rights whether we believe they are invented or not and do very well punishing and renouncing their violation.
There is something else that exists only in the minds of human beings that have an extremely stable effect on our everyday lives: nations. Despite that, human beings seem to have little problem judging which nation a person “belongs” in or where a certain nation exists or what its laws or customs are. If such judgments can be made about nations, then your claim is simply false, just like the phrase “intrinsic rights” is nonsense.
You argue that human rights can't be simply invented because they're otherwise not guaranteed. I'll put this argument form in a different context: “If there's no Santa Claus, then I won't get any toys.” You'd have no problem seeing here that believing in Santa Claus even more isn't going to help. I'll point out that kids get toys at Christmas without Santa Claus. So, in other words, both statements in that form are not intrinsically true. We can do very well respecting rights whether we believe they are invented or not and do very well punishing and renouncing their violation.
If we believe they are invented or not has no bearing on whether they are, in reality invented. So, by your argument, either your belief in them means more than the reality of their existence, in which case, the reality of their existence does nothing and their existence is irrelevant; or they don't exist but the self-deception will make us act as though they do. I don't see how you can like the implications of either of these. I definitely don't.
“Who are we to determine what another person thinks is right concerning killing another person or in some way treating them as a means rather than an end if people do not possess any rights?”
I simply don't understand this sentence. If rights are “invented” it does not mean that rights don't exist, and if human beings invent them to shape each others' social behavior, why should they take your humbleness argument, which really isn't humbleness but pure manipulation?
However, if rights are function of some qualities defined by a culture, then it is irrational to claim American slavery is immoral for those individuals practicing and endorsing it.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Can I just say they were very immoral times and I'm glad I wasn't there? I think most people would agree with me.
“A better approach is to confer rights based on the ontology of the person. Humans are unique and deserve basic rights because God has implanted His image within them. “
First, what does theology have to do with ontology? Now you're bolstering a bunch of weak, historically misinformed arguments by pouring your righteous religion over them. Who could argue against something so holy? The only problem with this is, since God doesn't exist, it's less intrinsic than bullshit. It doesn't bolster the rest of your arguments. It weakens them in favor of affirming your faith, which is you're obligated to do as a Christian above all else. Opposition to choice is just a means of doing that.
“P1’: Humans should not be unjustifiably killed because humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26; 9:6).”
A zygote at conception looks like God? I thought human beings look like God, i.e. they have a face, two arms and two legs, but then again, God the Father's not supposed to have a material form, is he? Or is the image of God perfect so unchangeable but changeable? Or does he, too, have a zygote/fetal stage that he goes through regularly? How many of these contradictions can you face before you don't believe anymore?
Plus, you said the philosophical bedrock for murder was in “intrinsic rights” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Now you're contradicting that saying that the bedrock actually has do with acting against the image of God? So, if we create a sculpture of somebody, does that then become a graven image of God, offending the commandments?
If God can look like both a zygote and a middle aged man or woman and you acknowledge no contradiction with that, can't he look like a corpse, too? If it's a mystery how God can do this, how can you use it as an argument if you don't know what you're talking about? Again, you seek the scripture to disguise what's really moral relativism.
ReplyDelete“The problem is that people don’t live like that, and we know it. People have no trouble recognizing slavery as a clear example where an entire culture endorsed the dehumanization of people purely for pigment levels in their skin.”
Well, we had this discussion. Slavery was considered moral for thousands of years everywhere, and the Bible endorsed the chosen people practicing it on “those people” (non-Jews, but in our country's context, people who were different). I've heard humanitarians in the classical age saw slavery as the only way to prevent mass slaughter-- genocide. What has amazed historians is that suddenly in the 19th century it was considered immoral, and people even found Bible quotes purportedly against it, even though others in earlier ages read the same passages and didn't see any objection.
In other words for slavery, it had always been like that, but the fact that it became different when “The Declaration” and “Rights of Man” were written is suggestive. Strangely enough, those documents had more effect on Europeans than Americans.
“C’: Abortion is morally wrong in most situations from the moment of fertilization.”
In most situations? How can bend on this? I thought it was homicide. If you kill somebody to save your life, it's still a homicide and a prosecutor will at least look at it. If you kill an inbred kid or a kid conceived from rape, that should still be homicide outside the womb even if you're concerned for them medically or for their care when you do it. How can you believe that it's a human being at conception with a right to life and possibly qualify it like this.
I'll tell you: moral relativism is how. You want to feel you're not too barbaric to women so you give this as a show of your humanitarianism.
“Of course, some argue that the image of God is not imputed at fertilization. However, I think there is compelling scriptural support that people possess the image of God from the moment life begins. The most notable is the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ. “
ReplyDeleteThe “immaculate conception” refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus's. Does every Christian need an atheist to teach them their religious dogma and doctrined? Look it up if you don't believe me.
And wasn't the Immaculate Conception, or the Virgin Birth (of Jesus) an exception to everything? If you believe, what possible bearing could it have on a normal conception? Moreover, what possible bearing could Jesus' conception have on a normal one? And what is “possessing” the image of God? If I look like you, you never say “He possesses my image.”?
“The Penguin Dictionary of Biology provides an excellent, concise definition of biological life:
“'[Living organisms are] complex physico-chemical systems whose two main peculiarities are (1) storage and replication of molecular information in the form of nucleic acid, and (2) the presence of (or in viruses perhaps merely the potential for) enzyme catalysis.'”
Isn't this a functional definition of life? Haven't you argued with me that function shouldn't matter in considering something a human being or not? Now you're using it at an earlier point in your own argument. Why do you claim you're above making functional definitions of human beings while yours is functional, too? Again, moral relativism, but in a good Christian cause. If you can make functional arguments over the definition of life, it's dishonest then to reject functional arguments over human life. I'm going to remind you of this whenever you complain that I'm defining a human being by function.
This definition unequivocally places a fertilized egg as a living organism. Furthermore, the moment of fertilization is marked by the slow block to polyspermy, which is a series of biochemical processes that limit the number of sperm that may penetrate the oocyte to one. This provides a clear point in time marking the formation of a new organism with its own unique life trajectory.
Yes, but birth is also unique and you don't need an endo-microscope pointed in the right direction to see it. So, in practice, how clear is it? There's a good reason why we certify births and not conceptions. If the basis of your argument is that this event is “unique,” the zygote still has never attained consciousness and is not ready to. Consciousness is unique. Also, the zygote has no body, no brain, no nervous system. Why are you marking this event “unique,” but unobservable event above all other unique events in pregnancy? Answer: moral relativism disguised behind piety.
“Adding additional criteria to the definition of life is a grave mistake that can lead to bizarre and absurd conclusions. For example, some pro-abortion advocates claim that a fetus requires a functioning nervous system to be alive.
[This post should have gone first, but for some reason, was missing]
ReplyDeleteA logical argument is only as valid as the premises you put in it. Your “modus ponens” structures is solid, (if inefficient) but you give your premises as facts down to the very terms in which you've presented them. The problem is, your wording isn't clear at all, and you've manipulated the rhetoric so that they can't be question without bringing the questioner under moral attack.
What do you mean by “intrinsic” and “intrinsic rights.” How can an abstract, inorganic concept such as “rights” be intrinsic to a biological organism? Not even Thomas Jefferson and, as far as I could tell, Thomas Paine said rights were intrinsic. Jefferson said “unalienable,” meaning, even if you're an atheist, that if they were were alienated, you could fight the alienators and expect allies to help you. That's exactly what happened.
If rights are intrinsic, it means if you've “alienated” them from a person, then from that act alone you've either killed them or you've made them morphologically into a different species. Either way, this expresses a belief in black magic and it can't possibly be what you mean.
Also, what is meant by “Human life begins at conception?” The sperm and egg cells are human. Since the life is human before, during and after conception, what can this possibly mean? Do you mean genetically complete? Yes, two sets of genes have just met and started to cooperate, but it doesn't have a trillionth the number of genes it needs to survive, which is why it starts reproducing and making changes as fast as possible. Then it can twin becoming two individuals, which means that a unique human life did not begin at conception.
What you've presented here is nothing but moral relativism. Your choice is on when a human being begins is not more logical than choosing any other point. You just put God's name on the choice you're pretending not to make, just as kings once did to Divine Right before Jefferson corrected them with the concept of unalienable rights. Unlike Divine Right, there's nothing Biblical to support life beginning at conception, which adds moral dishonesty to your relativism. To paraphrase you, there's no convincing reason you've given why a zygote is a human being with rights. Birth is a much more compelling argument on the facts. Neural function is a more compelling argument. Viability falls someplace in between. Conception is dead last.
You point out that opinions vary other than at conception that without agreement on conception, nobody can agree. But this is a tautology that applies to every other opinion on the subject. One could also say that if you don't agree with birth being the beginning of a human being, then nobody can agree on whether it's at conception, neuro-maturity or viability. I'll add that there probably would be consensus as to when a fetus is too close to being a person to allow abortion if so much time and energy weren't committed to fighting people like yourself who think it ought to be at conception.
Sure doesn't take much to get you "Christians" all hot and bothered.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I studied Religion at Loyola I think I can Trump your wikipedia nonsence, It's obvious you don't even understand what you copied and pasted
“Adding additional criteria to the definition of life is a grave mistake that can lead to bizarre and absurd conclusions. For example, some pro-abortion advocates claim that a fetus requires a functioning nervous system to be alive.
ReplyDeleteThis is a simple lie, a strawman. All agree that the fetus is alive. It's whether it's a human being (in the normal definition, not the expanded one) that's we dispute. At least be honest about your opponents' arguments.
“A simple argument demonstrating that humans possess a right to life from conception was presented. It was further argued that each premise is more plausible than the corresponding negation. Thus, the conclusion of argument cannot logically be avoided. Murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent human. If the argument goes through, then what else would you call an abortion? Certainly the unborn baby is innocent. Abortion is legal in the US, but that does not make abortion any less immoral. Is lawfully killing a spouse in country where such actions are legal moral for those people? Clearly not! The law is in error and must be changed.”
But you said in “most situations” abortion was wrong. Again, if you believed your conclusion, you would have never made that qualification.
You're not going to get rid of abortion, or maybe you will for a generation and not any longer. Mostly for the same reason that 37 percent of women who receive abortions are Catholic. For the most part, no matter they say, when they have an unwanted pregnancy women will want the choice. That need is not going away. Guys, too, are not going to want to be stuck having to pay for unwanted children, not when they can easily prevent the creation of those children, and especially when their mothers don't want them either.
The worse thing that could happen to the prolife movement is if they make abortion illegal. It will destroy the movement and abortion will be legal again within thirty years, and they'll never gain the numbers who want it illegalized again. It will cause hardship for twenty, thirty years and then discredit the movement for centuries.
If I don't answer your blog that often, it's not because your arguments are so perfect that I'm too awed or too cowardly. It's that I usually don't have the time to correct all the errors and marshal the all the counter-arguments. I might have stopped at 300 words, but would have been merely heckling. Anything as wrong as this blog post requires something more thorough.
PS. To Abo society of ok
ReplyDeleteFor someone who says he bases his opinion on science, I've seen you quote any of those books all but once in your arguments, and you made no quotes in this blog entry. You did quote the Bible. Do you reference the science books here just to make yourself look intelligent? Certainly looks like it.
You guys reference wikipedia more than any site claiming to have these philosophical/intellectual arguments.
ReplyDeleteWho did? I tried to find it, but couldn't. I'd appreciate clarification on this.
Sure Rhology.
ReplyDeleteJohn Wesley-
"here is what wikipedia says about the word Almah:
"Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman and children born to an almah would be illegitimate. The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means "an unmarried girl (especially a virgin).""
There are other instances on the blog that I've seen, but I don't feel like going back that far to even deal with it. Bottom line is you guys always use wikipedia, the Oxford dictionary or the Bible to define anything. When everything is subject to interpretation. (And your ridiculous "I fived an apple" interpretation argument to) is so tired man.
Madman,
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad I read your last comment first, because I have no need to read anymore of your comments. Your illogical assumptions about the future make me wonder if you are a psychic who can predict what will happen if only abortion is abolished.
"You're not going to get rid of abortion, or maybe you will for a generation and not any longer. Mostly for the same reason that 37 percent of women who receive abortions are Catholic."
Umm.. have you seen the name of the blog? Abolish human abortion. Abolish slavery. Do you think that slavery abolitionists thought when they were starting their abolitionist groups that they would ever abolish slavery? Humanly speaking, absolutely not, over the course of 20 years. However, John Wesley once said (not John Wesley on this blog) that "unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you?" God is for us, and we are confident in that. Please further explain "mostly for the same reason that 37 percent of women who receive abortions are Catholic." So what? I could claim to be an atheist, go get an abortion, and validate the stereotypical pro-choice atheist who has no moral reasoning and therefore no problem with an abortion. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. People can claim to be something all day long (Baptist, Catholic, atheist, agnostic), but I am confident that Bible believing followers of Christ who have been transformed by the Gospel are seeking to abolish abortion, and in that case, the Catholic women getting abortions holds no ground. So, please clarify.
"For the most part, no matter they say, when they have an unwanted pregnancy women will want the choice. That need is not going away. Guys, too, are not going to want to be stuck having to pay for unwanted children, not when they can easily prevent the creation of those children, and especially when their mothers don't want them either. The worse thing that could happen to the prolife movement is if they make abortion illegal."
Once again, this seems to be based on mere speculation. The funny thing is, we have confident Biblical hope and a consistent moral standard to base the brutality of abortion on, and WHY we are seeking to abolish it, yet your claims for being pro-choice are based on speculation of the future, and being psychic. And guys having to pay for unwanted children? Solution: grow up, be responsible for your sexual urges, and take responsibility for your actions. Abortion? An excuse for men to indulge in their selfish sexual desires and not suffer the consequences of their behavior by getting rid of the consequence (abortion). Wow, how sad. Grow up men, and you won't face unwanted children, nor will you face having to pay for them.
All that to say, I would advise you to think about your speculations and psychic abilities, because they seem to be failing in your logical reasoning for supporting abortion.
Wow. I go out to dinner and hang with the fam and come back to a good night of reading. I'll address the uh, PS statement that madman fred made directly to my post, and let the debate that is going on between him and others proceed without me.
ReplyDeleteYo fred, I didn't say anything about basing my opinion on science. (What are you talkin' 'bout?). Its not my opinion that Fetuses begin to take in air through their umbilical cord around the 12th week of their prenatal development and that their respiratory systems have begun development by the end of the 9th. This is just standard embryological development stuff, and I listed some book that could be looked at to corroborate the claim. Do you want me to post picture's of me reading these books?
I didn't reference these books here to make myself look intelligent, I referenced them so that the poster above who said that human fetuses don't breathe could become more intelligent or knowledgable if they wanted to. But, I guess I will have to write a post on prenatal development in the next week or so. Thanks for the idea.
PS: Good zinger pointing out the popular misattribution of the term "immaculate conception" (which is referencing what Catholic's believe about Mary's birth) to Jesus's incarnation of within the womb of Mary. You are right on this. I usually pull this tidbit of knowledge out at parties to impress people with my terminological knowledge. Lots of people are confused about this. Nice work
Kat,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
Sure doesn't take much to get you "Christians" all hot and bothered.
Matt, I studied Religion at Loyola I think I can Trump your wikipedia nonsence, It's obvious you don't even understand what you copied and pasted.
Well, you might want to ask Loyola for a refund, since you failed to learn basic intellectual skills such as reading comprehension, logic, or spelling.
Your argument from authority (I'm right because I went to Loyola) is yet another informal logical fallacy. Does this not bother you? If it is impossible for me to withstand your superior intellect and education, why don't you actually make an argument?
You claim I quoted wikipedia. I did not. I did not even read that article. You are confusing me with someone else.
You also failed, once again, to interact with anything I actually said.
At this point, I'd like to believe you are being intentionally coy, rather than let the good reputation of Loyola be tarnished by your behavior here.
I'm done here. Thx 4 teh lolz.
Good grief. So much crap for quoting wikipedia! I'm sorry I wont do it anymore. Its not completely useless the quote I lifted from wikipedia was from here: "Definition of "Maid" found in WordNet 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University"
ReplyDeleteI guess a shallow understanding of what makes a good source led to this outcry. But if its a quote from a legitimate source it doesn't make wikipedia evil. Then again, it may not be legitimate source. Matt quoted a lexicon, thats probably not good enough either. I wish people wanted to deal with the substance of the article like I hope and think madman fred has done. But I haven't read it yet. I have a splitting headache, I'll look at it tomorrow.
Peace
You think you know what to expect from Genesis just by reading Revelations? My psychic abilities are nothing compared to your confidence in yours. You are totally wrong to assume that the rest of what I wrote was in the same vein as my summary.
ReplyDeleteYes, summed up with my speculation, which is why I waited until the sum-up to give. It has NO BEARING on anything else I wrote and little connection to it other than being about abortion. I was just happy to have reached the end of methodically answering all the points in his entry and to be writing free rather than answering him anymore.
And, yes, as you're so astute to notice the obvious, it's speculative. My speculation I can take or leave, so I won't argue it with you further. I merely declare it.
So, you're really happy to have missed the entire point and to be answering something that had nothing to do with the rest of what I wrote? Maybe you should either throw yourself into total laziness and not say anything else, or at least read the rest.
BTW, your saying the abolitionists didn't think they'd ever succeed is rather speculative about the group of them, too. So is your confidence that true believers (and do you know how many are truly true?) don't have second thoughts when presented with the decision themselves. But then, what can I say? The Bible is your favorite speculative fiction, and you're really just a Bible fan. Just like Trekker really. The difference is that Trekkers stop short of fanaticism.
And whether God is for or against you is dependent, first on foremost, whether God exists. This has never, ever been demonstrated, and if it were demonstrated, there would be no point to "believing in" God. You don't believe in things or qualities of things that obviously exist. Faith does not indicate confidence.
So, if your so confident in the existence of God that you believe in him, you're not confident at all. What you are is committed to acting as though he exists and is on your side, hoping that it will end up being the reality, or that you will always be ignorant of how wrongheaded you've been, which is far worse than just being speculative.
Interesting that you think that women simply lie on the surveys to impugn the Catholic church. Is it that all women who seek abortions are liars? That seems rather "speculative" to me, especially when a third seem inclined to slander members of the Catholic Church. It's far more speculative to form your opinion without even numbers on a sound survey than to form them with the numbers.
So, why should you have confidence in your baseless speculations rather than mine? I also find it interesting that you would you be tempted to slander atheists if you had a chance, while those lying women seeking abortions won't. What it tells me is, you speculate on everybody else's lying by your own willingness to do so, which seems to be higher than usual. So, I'm sorry to mention the possibility you're probably a bigger liar than the women who took the survey. That, of course, is speculative, but I have higher confidence in it than anything else I've speculated.
So, don't give speeches about growing up and all those other parenting cliches you want to apply to adult women and men. A person stopping themselves from having a child they can't possibly raise is not a childish decision no matter how and why they had sex. Also, sex is hardly a childish thing, children don't and can't think in terms of it. It's a uniquely adult thing.
Your faith has no credibility; your speech on responsibility is irrelevant. The idea that having less sex will eliminate abortion is simply idiotic, given the odds of pregnancy and best failure rate for birth control. Plus people tend to use birth control less when they trust their willpower, as statistics on abstinence bear out. There's nothing to respect in your argument.
Ooops. Forgot to say on that last message:
ReplyDeleteThat was for you roanie1012.
To Abo OK:
ReplyDeleteDo you or do you not say that your claim that life begins at conception is based on embryology? You've said it on Twitter.
As for whether the fetus can breathe, I have to go with your opposition here. The fetus can expand its diaphragm, but it doesn't and can't respire through its lungs, and they aren't ready to exchange gases. At most, it exercises it's diaphragm, but it doesn't actually breathe, and can't, which is why premature births are generally put on respirators.
You should also know that the fetus is so much like a human being that the odds of a premature birth surviving before the 23rd week is less than 1 percent, and that there has never been a documented case of a premie surviving prior to the 22nd week. This means that the odds of a fetus born and surviving at that stage, with the best care available, are worse than the odds of surviving a fall from the Empire State Building.
Also, they don't begin to take in "air" through their umblical cord. They take in oxygen. If the fetus took in air through there it would be dead. In other words, they don't do anything the way a human being would, as human beings don't have umbilical cords, unless you expand the definition. Also, taking oxygen through the cord means that it doesn't have to breath, unlike human beings.
In other words, yeah, it does practices breathing to prepare for the time when it would need to.
Thanks frodo. Didn't see that.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd like to suggest that when God defines something, that's way more authoritative than any human source.
LOL, you guys are falling all over yourselves, contradicting statements, first it's science, then it's the bible, back to science, bible seems to trump science,then back to science trumps bible. You fail on all accounts. You're just a bunch of blithering Misogynists idiots.
ReplyDeleteMadman said, "In other words, yeah, it does practices breathing to prepare for the time when it would need to."
ReplyDeleteSo, in other words, you are telling me that I am right. Weird.
Quick question: What is my twitter name?
And, I'm not sure, but did you just argue that if a human has an umbilical cord they can be dismembered if somebody else chooses to kill them?
That's not really science, philosophy, or theology.
And, I don't know if it is a great idea to define whether a human has a right to stay alive based on whether they would stay alive if you violently or non violently extracted them from their environment. That ain't cool man.
But you aren't serious. If a premie were born at 20 weeks today and you held him or her in your arms tomorrow, you wouldn't change any of your views. Your views are based on your desired end.
Your comments here are text book representations of standard atheistic/agnostic rationalization techniques of rhetoric over reason.
I'm going out on a day long study date away from this blog. But I promise to deal with your vitriol sometime tonight after I get back home.
Roanie
ReplyDelete"All that to say, I would advise you to think about your speculations and psychic abilities, because they seem to be failing in your logical reasoning for supporting abortion."
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
I checked in Friday afternoon before leaving town for the night and saw two comments. Got back tonight and it jumped to 41!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there is a lot of good stuff here. I made it about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through the posts. I will try to get responses up ASAP. Tonight it is pretty late and tomorrow I have family coming in for Easter, so it may not happen until tomorrow night.
Right about what? If you consider 30% correct right. Of course, you could take it 70% further with pure bullshit and arrogance.
ReplyDeleteNormanAbolition would be your twitter name, I thought. He's the one who linked to this. Am I mistaken? Did one of your cohorts lead me here? He's either your sock, he's imitating you, or deliberately trying to confuse people.
No, I didn't give having an umbilical cord as a reason that a fetus should be aborted, or a reason why a mother should be allowed to abort it. Umbilical cords aren't that offensive. Are you just taking words I wrote, jumbling them and than grabbing for any absurd combination you can to make a counterargument? No, an umbilical cord is not a reason to kill a fetus. Sorry you wasted perfectly good moral outrage on that one.
However, a person doesn't live in a womb. If you take a fetus out of the womb, it dies, if you put a baby into the womb, it dies. The two animals inhabit utterly different environments. Unlike a frog and a tadpole, which are basically as side by side as dogs and puppies.
BTW, referring to your previous post, a tadpole doesn't have an umbilical cord either, but you need to compare frogs to frog embryos, not to tadpoles to make any kind of accurate analogy. A human being is to fetus as frog is to frog embryo, not a tadpole. That kid probably wouldn't have felt so appalled at killing frog eggs, which he could hardly see. That is, until you brought home the utter evil of it to him.
My views aren't based on desired ends you arrogant, presumptuous, asshole. As a male, I'll never need an abortion, and for medical reasons, I've never been obligated to pay for one, and there's a zero chance I'll ever impregnate anyone. So, what the hell are these "desired ends?" I guess if you can't come up with anything whatsoever, possession by Satan himself might be your fallback, but I warn you, it's idiotic.
Meanwhile, I say you're antichoice because it's an adventure in a Bible fantasy world that makes you happy, where there's good vs. evil, and you feel like a champion fighting evil. To me, that means your conclusions are based on a desired end, informed by the Bible, your favorite work of fiction, and with the social support of fellow Bible fans who are always telling you how moral and unquestionably good you are for doing it. Who could question such a motive as saving babies- -before they even exist. That's initiative.
I will say though, that not nearly every prochoice person shares my views and my philosophical underpinnings on the matter. They don't hold their opinions about discretionary abortion due to their religious views or lack of them. So, I ask you, knowing the answer will be no, don't stereotype this as "the standard atheistic/agnostic rationalization techniques. . . ." If you do, you'll be unpleasantly surprised.
My anti-religious views are not shared by most prochoicers. I just have some very negative views on cults, and Christianity is a cult as much as Scientology. Once you break from Christianity, and you've had time to de-program, the entire cult looks every bit as absurd as Scientology. If you're offended by that comparison, I think the Scientologists are, too.
Madman,
ReplyDeleteI will address you later. Easter is tomorrow and now is not the time to deal with you.
Kat,
Misogynists? What does that make me, as a woman? Can women be misogynistic?! Hmm. Why would a woman be an abolitionist? Good question.
You Madman FYI. I'm not normanabolition on twitter. and I didnt write the post above (that was The Chemist who lives in Tahlequah) and I didn't write the Post the other day about tadpoles and frogs (that was by Cicero, who lives in Norman). C'mon dude do you really think there is only one abolitionist in Oklahoma. Click around a bit more on the blog would ya.
ReplyDeleteBTW, It doesn't seem to me that you even understood Cicero's post the other day. And it's more than apparent that you didn't following the Chemist's above.
o nry upi trdpty yp ms,r vs;;omh dppm
I finished reading through these. I found three different posts that pertained directly to me. The rest are discussions among individuals, and I will leave those comments alone.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
The dispute concerning the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 has been dealt with by others. I have nothing to add to that except to point out that you have attacked the mode of Jesus’ conception. Even if successful, which I don’t think it is, this does not eliminate the fact that Jesus was conceived. Moreover, you are attacking a theological argument that is meant to support one of my premises. Even if that argument were to fail, you would still have to deal with the original premise on its own terms. For what it is worth. I think this entire topic is a red herring. By “virginal conception” I intended to point out his incarnation began in the womb. The mode, while important, is secondary for this argument.
Kat:
First of all, are you the blogger “katsworld” from an early combox on this blog?
There are two things that I think have sufficient substance to warrant a response.
1. “A sperm and and egg are Also LIVING ORGANISMS, without out them you have....NOTHING”.
Germ cells are haploid cells; they do not undergo mitosis. Furthermore, they do not replicate their genetic code on their own. I thought I made it fairly clear where life begins with the short quote I provided and emphasized it by pointing to the slow block to polyspermy. It is only after a single spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine that a unique individual is formed with his or her own life trajectory. This diploid cell is the first instance where that cell has a complete genetic code, undergoes DNA replication (and mitosis I would add), and has enzymatic metabolism. I would also point out that this objection only backs the beginning of human life up one notch. You need to move it down to sustain abortion.
2. “Genisis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
This comment has been dealt with by others as well. I would only reiterate that the “breath of life” may be taken as God giving humans a soul. Beyond that, I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you intending to say that life requires actual breathing (i.e., the inhaling and exhaling of air)?
Madman Fred:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your detailed response to my post. You have a lot of things in this series of comments. I am going to pick out the major threads and respond to those. If I gloss over your favorite argument, bring it back up, and I will give it the attention you want it to have.
“What do you mean by ‘intrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic rights’?
In the OP, I stated that “an intrinsic right is taken to be an essential property of the person.” I then differentiated intrinsic rights from privileges. Frankly, I don’t know how to make it much plainer than this. My only guess is that you might be confused about what an essential property means. Is that the confusion? At any rate, you then continued on to compare this with “unalienable” rights as used by Jefferson. Perhaps some dictionary definitions would help here. Here is a cut-and-paste from Merriam-Webster:
Intrinsic:
1. a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing b : being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2. a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part — compare EXTRINSIC 1b
The Merriam-Webster directs “unalienable” towards “inalienable”.
Inalienable:
1. incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
I would argue that an intrinsic right is an unalienable right, for it is impossible to transfer or surrender that right. Based on this, I don’t understand the problem here.
Sperm and egg cells are human
See comment above to Kat.
Twinning
For your criticism to go through, you have to maintain that it is impossible for a Christian theist to explain twinning in a consistent fashion. I don’t think that is something you will be able to sustain. For instance, it certainly could be that the cells prior to twinning possessed two souls that then separate. I freely admit that I do not have a lock tight explanation for how ensoulment works, nor do I necessarily think the previous explanation is the “correct” answer. I will add quickly that this is a red herring. Twinning itself does not defeat either premise. Indeed, the entire point is moot with regard to this specific argument.
My views amount to moral relativism
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting charge because I am moral objectivist. Maybe you need to read the argument over again. My claim is that if the right to life is intrinsic and if human life begins at conception, then the single cell must possess a right to life. This will go through logically if the premises themselves are more plausible than their negations. I presented a scientific definition of life that is fairly non-controversial and observed that a single cell possesses those qualities. It is life; and it is undoubtedly a human cell. If you wish to argue against that premise then please provide another definition, point out where the definition is faulty, or demonstrate that a single cell fails to exhibit those attributes. The second premise is that the right to life is intrinsic. I argue that the vast majority of people agree with me on this. We recognize situations where the right to life for people has been violated. The point is that if the right to life is not intrinsic then we have no basis for condemning those atrocities. Instead, the right to life becomes an attribute of a human that may or may not be granted. Again, the premise seems to be far more plausible than its negation. The problem is that pro-abortionists are locked into denying the right to life for pre-birth individuals, but they still want to maintain a right to life for others (e.g., post-birth people). My charge is that this is an inconsistent position. Either the right to life is intrinsic or it is not. It cannot be both.
By the way, I am not claiming that it is lack of agreement that means we must take life as beginning at conception. I am claiming that there simply is no consensus, and blaming this on pro-life individuals seems pretty specious to me. My argument is that any other claim to the beginning of human life is fundamentally arbitrary. Conception is the only and first point that is most consistent with the base definition of life I gave. Later points add functional qualities that must be fulfilled, and I see no good reason to select one list of qualities over another. If one wants to hold a later time than conception, it seems to me that they have a very heavy burden to bear that has not been met.
Strawman
Alas, this would be true if I hadn’t encountered claims to the contrary in my blogging past.
Abortion is wrong in most situations
Abortion is morally justified in extremely narrow circumstances such as an ectopic pregnancy. In those situations, both the mother and child will die if no action is taken. Here the abortion salvages on life. Unfortunately, the child will not survive. If the medical field were to advance to a point where the child could be spared, then I would happily change this to “every situation.”
Forecast of the pro-life movement
This is pure speculation. I would simply point out the past success in abolishing slavery despite the claims that it would wreck havoc on the South.
Christianity is a cult as much as Scientology
ReplyDeleteWhat definition of "cult" are you using, and what justifies that definition?
Again, you are using intrinsic in a way inconsistent with any scientific argument for life. I looked up the definitions of intrinsic and I could not figure out which of them would possibly fit the use your giving. You haven't cited that either. So, let me analyze this:
ReplyDelete"The right to life is intrinsic, and if human life begins at conception, then the cell must possess the right to life."
Definition 1) Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.
So, "The right to life belongs to the essential nature of a human being, and if life begins at conception, then the cell must possess the right to life."
No, if it's the "essential nature" of a human being, it the conditional arrow would go the other way. It would have the right to life, which is necessary to the nature of human beings, and then you would rule it a human being. Because one would be essential to the other. At the same time, if you took away the right to life, didn't just rule it away, without the essential nature that made somebody human, the creature in question would either die or would be made into a different creature. Biologically, essential nature is like six legs on an insect. You'd use it to determine what it was, and anything else.
Definition 1b: "being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains."
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't have meant this as your definition. Just in case, "The right to life is determined by the number of charge carriers a human being can call their own . . ." Okay, end sarcasm. To the next definition.
2. a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part — compare EXTRINSIC 1b
So, if this is your definition you must be saying, "The right to life originates within the organs of the body, and if human life begins at conception, yet it has no organs and no body, then I'm totally mystified and don't know what I'm talking about."
Yes, I think most people would agree with you, but just because the word "intrinsic" sounds so cool, and like both of us, they really think rights are very important.
And that's the only thing I think Jefferson was saying, to paraphrase, "We take rights very seriously."
"For your criticism to go through, you have to maintain that it is impossible for a Christian theist to explain twinning in a consistent fashion."
ReplyDeleteNo, I wasn't making any point about a "Christian theist" (waxing redundant). I was saying that twinning is inconsistent with the proposition that this would be a human individual at conception, a complete entity due to being genetically diploid, and yet turn so easily into two separate, independent individuals-- with the same set of genes you say make it a complete human being. If it can be two people after conception, it can easily be zero for sometime afterward. Of course you don't claim to know how ensoulment works, but in my opinion, if you don't have a working brain, ensoulment is your only argument. In fact, I think the rest of what you say is bullshit and ensoulment is the real reason why you insist life begins at conception. Because if God isn't involved with creating a baby in the womb, then he's really nowhere at all, but now that scientific instruments have detected nothing like God doing the work, so your left to insist on sacredness and humbleness about it, because if you look close enough to become blasphemous, God isn't there.
Too tired, will have to answer the rest tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteMMF said:
ReplyDeleteyou are using intrinsic in a way inconsistent with any scientific argument for life
I'd like to ask you to consider that you are committing a category error here. Science has no access to the question of rights or value. Science deals with what IS in terms of nature, material, and energy. It can tell us nothing of what OUGHT to be, like how one ought to treat others.
If you think The Chemist hasn't defined "intrinsic", then I think you need to read his original post again, b/c he already discussed that. If you want more info, see here too.
The chemist
ReplyDeleteIt is only after a single spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine that a unique individual is formed with his or her own life trajectory. This diploid cell is the first instance where that cell has a complete genetic code.
There is NO "unique individual" UNLESS the spermatozoon and a single oocyte combine.
You can defend your position on when life begins with genetic codes and DNA scenarios all you want but you have to have the spermatozoon and a single oocyte to COMBINE before you get either.
kat,
ReplyDeleteHas any abolitionist argued otherwise?
To Rhology:
ReplyDeleteWhat definition? Do you think I should use whatever one exempts Christianity? Or do you think it's unfair that I apply the standard of judgment on what's a cult to Christianity, too?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, it's a duck not a bald eagle.
I guess you could argue that Christianity should be exempt from that category because it's the one true religion. There's no evidence of that outside of Christian "belief in's" which are necessary to the faith, and every other cult says that their beliefs and practices.
Hello mmf,
ReplyDeleteI was hoping to get the definition of "cult" that you're using.
Your "duck, eagle" comment assumes that you have a definition for "duck" and "eagle" from which you draw your identifying information beforehand.
Feel free to keep giving us your unsupported opinion if you like, but I asked a specific question and would appreciate an answer.
To ASO,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the forgotten attributions. To add to my last post regarding twinning: if you don't know it's two people at conception, you can't possibly know it's one person at conception. You will be as surprised at it ending up being twins or triplets and any of those not purportedly armed with your "scientific knowledge."
The "science" is just the excuse. Your whole reason for saying life begins at conception is that it's necessary for you to believe it if you're going to keep your faith. As a Christian, your sworn and committed to doing that above all else, even if to do it you have to throw yourself into ignorance.
To Rhology:
ReplyDeleteIn no way make a category error or any other. First, he doesn't define "intrinsic" in the article you cited. He uses the word only once and that's to say intrinsic rights aren't mentioned in the Bible. The only definition he gave was in these posts. Why do you send me to an article almost totally irrelevant to your point? I have to wonder if you read the Bible with that kind of comprehension. It must help you keep your faith.
Second, he's the one who has claimed that his arguments about whether the fetus is alive and a human being are based on science. I simply took his argument on the basis of the claim he's making.
Third, if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality. I think that's an extremely weak premise to have if just declare it and give no evidence of it.
Fourth, two of the three definitions he gives in his answers to me are scientific or highly technical.
Fifth, I plugged all of them into his argument to see if they made sense. If it's a logical argument, then the method is scientific, and so I held him to it.
The first and only non-scientific definition, as I said, utterly reverses the arrow of inference on his argument. If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.
Conclusion: he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being. The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument, but antichoicers have it in their heads that this is a rights issue, that some evil makes prochoicers want to deprive people of rights, not something generally consistent in the rest of our lives.
No, it's an issue of whether something that has no body and most importantly, has no brain, is actually a human being. On scientific grounds, no. It doesn't matter what you have to say about how we should treat others. There's nobody there to be treated any way.
Hi mmf,
ReplyDeleteI sent you to my article b/c it defines rights. It was my attempt to help you understand where we're coming from. I'd like to ask you to consider that you need to take one of two tracks here:
1) Criticise the biblical view from the inside. This will require that you properly understand and correctly represent the Bible's teaching.
2) Criticise it from the outside. This will require that you give us some reason to think that your position has any meaningful basis for human rights at all, so that you can tell us that they're not from conception but are somehow acquired somewhere else. So far I can't see you've done either, so hopefully this will guide you.
Yes, he did claim the fetus is alive. But more than that, he said the fetus is HUMAN.
Who would dispute the fetus is alive? I think you mean to dispute that the fetus is human, right? Let me ask you to be more careful and specific in the future.
You said:
if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.
Not physical. Far from it.
And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument.
If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.
But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there.
he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think you've merely misunderstood.
While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being
True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point.
Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both.
The entire idea of rights doesn't even belong in the argument
I disagree, since we're talking about whether it's OK to kill fetuses, which may or may not be human.
There's nobody there to be treated any way.
thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.
Peace,
Rhology
To Rhology,
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, I don't like definitional arguments, they are wearisome, and it doesn't look like it, but I don't have a lot of time. It's not like "cult" has any remote, technical or scientific meaning that can confuse you.
So, with great difficulty, I'm typing out the Webster's New World College Dictionary defintion:
Cult: 1 a)a system of religious worship or ritual b) a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs 2 a) devoted attachment to, or extravagant admirition for a person, a principle, or a lifestyle, esp. when regarded as a fad b) the object of such attachment 3) a group of followers; sect.
I edited out the examples given.
I meant 1a most of all, but how many others fit? The second, 1b doesn't usually apply to Christianity now (except for examples like Jim Jones and David Koresh, and others abound), but it definitely applied to Christianity when it started.
Except for the "usually a fad part," 2a fits as much as it does for Trekkers. 2b applies, (Christ Cult). And as for 3 it applies to.
So, if you could get Christianity out of being a cult, I want you as my lawyer.
To Rhology,
ReplyDeleteIt might not look like it, but I already know where you think you're coming from. Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations, and that a follower learns to lie to herself and then lie to others to perpetuate it, I usually don't have the patience to take a dose of it just to be polite and find out more of what I already know.
You say your trying to guide me. My version is your trying to manipulate me. I know it feels to you like you're being polite and helpful and I'm being insulting, but really, why should I be scolded and told to meet YOUR standards of proper argument? If you ask me, it's bait to try to hook and convert me into your worldview while you won't give one inch.
"'if you make a declaration that rights are intrinsic, that's practically a claim of physical or logical reality.'"
"Not physical. Far from it."
My point exactly, except the meaning of it flies right over your head.
"And yes, logical. The Chemist laid out his argument."
But you see, my point was that his logic fails because he reversed the arrow of inference. Apparently, you don't know what I'm talking about, and you're not qualified to make any logical judgments.
"'If rights were intrinsic to a person, then we'd be using the presence of rights to judge whether anybody's a human being, and any anatomical or behavioral traits would be secondary to that fact of them.'"
"But not to the distinguishing of human-person from non-human-person. That might be the disconnect in your head right there."
And you're not only utterly lost here, but you're perfectly arrogant about it. No there's absolutely no disconnect in my head, but "ignorant and proud of it" begins to look like a good description of yours.
"'he's either deliberately misleading with that term, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.'"
"I think you've merely misunderstood."
What? How could I after he gave me that definition of "intrinsic?" No, I do understand, for reasons that you missed. Though, I'll say if he's misleading, though, he's misled himself too, which means he doesn't know what he's talking about.
To Rhology,
ReplyDelete"'While you're right that science doesn't decide how to treat people, it can answer questions about whether the fetus is a human being'"
"True, and that's precisely what the Chemist is getting at. So thank you for supporting his point."
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic. It's like the ignorant teaching the vegetables.
"Also, science can tell you how to help people and how to kill people most efficiently, both."
And these two points are even more irrelevant than rights. I could see you want the abortion argument even more cluttered than it already is.
"There's nobody there to be treated any way."
thanks for your assertion. We'll be waiting for your argument.
You see it as an assertion only because you did not comprehend the rest of what I wrote. So, now you want me to waste more time with an argument you'll understand even less?
You'll see me in Heaven or Hell first.
Which means "never" by the way.
Hi mmf,
ReplyDeleteRe: your 1a) definition of "cult", I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant assertion on your part. This fits the classical definition of "cult", taken from the Latin. Its classical meaning is pretty close to the modern French "culte", which simply refers to a worship service. Ie, "the cult of Mary", which refers to people who venerate Mary (but who would never admit to worshiping her).
So, I'm sorry, but this "cult" discussion is groundless, and further, making "cult" = "a religious system", then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a "cult". Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a "cult" does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church.
You said:
Given the fact that Christianity is nothing but frauds and manipulations
OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that "given". Which is not given at all.
The rest of your commentary is bloviating that fails to advance much of anything.
Then there's this one gem:
Except his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic.
The Chemist has a PhD in chemistry and teaches at a university. What do you have besides a couple of barely-begun blogs, O anonymous commenter?
Peace,
Rhology
"So, I'm sorry, but this 'cult' discussion is groundless, and further, making 'cult; = 'a religious system', then calling Christianity a cult is no big deal, b/c EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM is a 'cult'. Thus you drain the meaning out of the word, such that calling Branch Davidians a 'cult' does nothing to set them apart from your local Methodist church."
ReplyDeleteI didn't "drain the meaning" of it, an odd accusation since you can see I followed the EXACT ENGLISH definitions of "cult."
I notice you didn't dispute that. If the definition is too broad, take it up with Merriam-Webster.
So you've shown that you could deny the very meaning of the words out of a dictionary definition in front of you to keep your belief, (exactly what I'd expect in a cult-follower) and blame the sinful heathen when he cooperated but things didn't go your way, even though it was your idea.
Strange how you call this "meaningless" after you needled me for the meaning of cult, too lazy to look it up yourself. Hey, I didn't want to go there, remember? I didn't think it was that significant, remember? So, now it's my fault for making it too meaningful. The religious mind at work again.
I AM saying that every single social religious belief system IS a cult, and since you didn't notice, the Methodists are Christians, so you needn't inform me that I meant them, too.
You're doing exactly what I thought you would do if you knew: finding reasons why it's too broad if applied to Christianity, too, or finding reasons why it can't apply to Christianity. I knew this before I provided it.
Hilarious, now that the English language has utterly failed you, you're falling back on other languages for help. Don't tell me what it means in other languages unless your native tongue is Latin, Greek or French and you need an explanation about English.
None of the origin applies here. I don't care what they meant in Latin, Greek or Anatolian then, nor what the French, Russian or Gallic mean now. As interesting as the word origins are, they have no authority over the modern English language. None.
Plus, you knew what I meant when I said it, in our native tongue you just thought the dictionary wouldn't support me.
Can't you just feel insulted and leave it?
"OK, but what if I dispute that fact? I suppose that if I dispute it and have (obviously) numerous good reasons to dispute it, and can dispute it successfully, the rest of your comment vanishes, since you said "given the fact that..." and proceeded to base it on that 'given.' Which is not given at all."
Of course if you dispute the fact, but I'll tell you, like any cult member, you have to be de-programmed first. You don't really see what's wrong with it or almost all of the dirty deeds until you don't feel the obligation to believe in it anymore. I know that's not going to happen with you, especially by my arguing it. Faith is the art of enforced, selective blindness.
Which is why I simply declare my position about Christianity and don't argue it. You argue with the religious mind, it simply digs in deeper.
As for the Chemist, some scientists, including Nobel winners, have been shown to be complete ignoramuses outside their fields. That especially applies if you've damaged your thinking with Christianity. Then you have to cordon off your knowledge.
I'll remember to respect the Chemist when he writes about electron shells, ions and valence electrons. Unless he has a degree in embryology and bioscience we're on even ground there.
Whereas I have the advantage with nuclear physics.
To Rhology,
ReplyDeleteBut, if you want to keep your faith, whatever you do, don't read Frank Zindler's "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" or Joseph Wheless' "Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion." No Christian can study these and stay Christian.
madman before:
ReplyDeleteExcept his comprehension of science is as ignorant as yours is of logic.
madmanfred says now:
I'll remember to respect the Chemist when he writes about electron shells, ions and valence electrons.
The story changes once he's caught.
The rest of mmf's comments have no value, so any response would be of little value.
Oh, and is that the same Frank Zindler whom William Lane Craig destroyed in their debate?
ReplyDeleteMadman Fred:
ReplyDeleteI don't see any particular attack towards the premise that human life begins at conception, so I will move directly to the more contentious issue, the nature of the right to life. You claim that I have reversed the order of inference by making the right to life an intrinsic property. Furthermore, you seem to have some sort of reductionist view towards properties. Here are a few reasons why I think your criticism is lacking:
1. I have been very clear all along how I am using the word, to the point of defining my usage of intrinsic twice now. I am defining intrinsic rights as essential properties. I specifically chose the word property on purpose. I am convinced that some properties (though certainly not all) are abstract universals. The right to life for human beings would be one of those. Based on your writing, you seem to hold to either a nominalist or extreme nominalist view of properties. Perhaps you could clarify this? Now, a property is essential if it is impossible for the object in question to exist without that property. For example, suppose I find a red dot on a piece of paper. The dot will have the property of redness and that specific property is essential for the existence of the red dot. If the dot does not possess the property of "redness" then it is no longer a red dot. My premise claims that there are no human beings who do not have a right to life because such a situation is impossible. The right to life is a feature of their ontology and cannot be separated from their fundamental nature. So, I completely agree with you that there is no such thing as a human who does not possess a right to life. Do you think there are people who do not possess a right to life?
2. I think you are confused about what happens when a person's right to life is abrogated by a third party. We are discussing the right to life. A person does not lose their right to life just because someone else actually takes their life against their wishes. They still possessed the right. In fact, this is exactly what has happened in the past and continues to happen. A person or group of persons (call them group A) defines another person or group of persons (group B) as sub-human or non-human and thus feels justified in taking their lives or exploiting them. However, it is easy to see anachronistically how group A has simply violoated the rights of group B. It isn't that group B really wasn't human or didn't possess a right to life. It is that the knowledge of this right was either suppressed or ignored to justify the actions of group A.
3. It is reasonable to claim that the right to life is an intrinsic right for three reasons. First, moral subjectivism is a failed ethical system, and thus fails to ground the right to life in any objective sense of the term. This leaves an intrinsic right to life as the only game left in town. Otherwise, it is impossible to condemn past and present genocide. Most people recognize this. Second, there are good theological arguments that rights are intrinsic (Gen. 9:6). This reason is directed towards fellow Christians who disagree with my premise. Of course, I would be happy to discuss the rational basis for Christianity with you, but that is a different topic that is not particularly germane to this specific argument. I certainly recognize that this premise is very much at home within Christianity; however, I want to remind you that the premise is in no way tied to any particular faith.
4. All that is required is agreeing that people have a right to life that is not a function of some attributes that must be satisfied. I did find it interesting that you admit most people agree with me on this, but I disagree with you that because it is because I used the word "intrinsic". Do you really have such low expectations of people? I think most people agree with me because they recognize the right exists and it is fundamental to human beings. If you disagree that the right to life is an essential property then can you plainly state why you affirm that the right to life is not an intrinsic property for human beings? What basis do you hold people have a right to life at all if the right is not an essential property (assuming you hold to a right to life at all)? As before, I think defining your view of properties will go a long way here towards helping to advance the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI am going to skip past all the red herrings, the anti-religious screed, and attacks to my motivations/intellect. The only thing that is funny is that you claim science has removed God here, but I actually see science as an incredibly powerful tool that has moved the beginning of life to earliest possible point. It is the abortionist that is on hard times now, not the abolitionist.
By the way, keep your commenting straight. You are engaging three different people, but you keep confusing us. The blogging handles aren't that hard to distinguish. Rhology is Rhology here and elsewhere. I am The Chemist. I did not write Rhology's paper or any posts by anyone else.
Kat:
This is what I am saying. Where are you going with this?