Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 23 of 26
Finn- biological mechanisms serve no PURPOSE. They do however have an EFFECT. I know this seems like splitting hairs but it's not. "Purpose" even in common usage, means "intent" - You spilled it on purpose!
Quote:Again, it's a misuse of the word "purpose". Nature selects for characteristics that increase chances of survival (in a specific environment)... nature doesn't selects for "purposes". For example, opposable thumbs. You would not likely find opposable thumbs developing de novo in a plains environment, where animals tend to be geared toward speed for locomotion. You WILL find it in tree-dwelling and shoreline animals, where their primary locomotion is not running. And your last sentence... they serve no purpose to an animal that doesn't rely on using its hands is completely circular reasoning.
And there is the problem that I see in your point. If all of these biological mechanisms that were ultimately selected by nature, actually serve no purpose to life, then why were they selected? The Theory of Evolution demands that we accept that a biological mechanism can, in fact, serve a purpose, because if it does not serve a purpose, if it does not provide some benefit, then it will not be selected by nature. Opposable thumbs developed because they served a purpose. The purpose they served was in greater manipulation of the physical environment, which along with other things, such as increased mental capacity, allowed for the use of tools. Opposable thumbs didn’t develop in animals that run quickly, because they serve no purpose to an animal that doesn’t rely on using its hands to manipulate its environment.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
The "WHAT ??" post - are you referring to a post under your name that you replaced with "WHAT ??" ? Or was it in reference to my post, which in turn referred to Finn's post where he ambled around the idea a fertilized egg is a human that dies if you get only a placenta - "Human life begins at fertilization, and if it fails to develop, there is no more reason to believe that "someone" meant for it not to be, then to believe that if a person dies that "someone" meant for that person not to be. Dieing is a characteristic of being human, as it is a characteristic of all life. That a fertilized egg may die, for whatever reason, prior to becoming a fully developed human child doesn’t suggest that the fertilized egg was ever not human."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nay.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it does seem like splitting hairs. But it’s not really important. If you don’t like that I say that a biological mechanism serves a purpose, then feel free to replace that with “has a function.” My point won’t change.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- biological mechanisms serve no PURPOSE. They do however have a FUNCTION. I know this seems like splitting hairs but it's not. Using words like "purpose" and asking questions like "why" predetermine the answer.
Quote:It’s probably more likely that it would be expelled or reabsorbed, then that it would rot and cause sepsis, but okay, the embryo didn’t develop. I’m not disputing that, but I still don’t think that means that the “function” of fertilization is the production of solitary placenta.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
If I may step in qiuckly to comment on your previous post. You've concluded that if no embryo develops then it must have 'died'. And if in fact it had 'died', it would be there, rotting and septic. But there is no rotting sepsis, just a live and healthy but empty placenta.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
Causal
Nay.
--------------------------
For your sake I hope you're never in a position to have to think about it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, let's recap your "point". Fertilization has a "purpose" (a goal) which is to reproduce... humans, in this case. Therefore if you thwart the "purpose" of fertilization you're committing murder.
To go back to DT's concept of the 7:29 train, it's like looking at a pile of parts and saying.... those parts have a "purpose", which is to build the 7:29 train. Therefore, if you destroy those parts you've destroyed the "purpose" of those parts and therefore you've destroyed the train.
If I view fertilization as a PROCESS and not a PURPOSE then there is no innate ideal human just waiting to be developed, there is a series of changes which usually produces a human but often produces something else.
EDITED TO ADD: I realize it's an emotionally unfulfilling position in our idealist Judeo-Xtian culture.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, since I didn't get a reply I assume you've gone off to Washington or OCUNUS or wherever, so I'll pop this up for your perusal once. TTUL
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here are a couple of articles to add fuel to the fire.
1.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20715103-401,00.html
SCIENTISTS in Britain have applied for a licence to create hybrid embryos using human cells and animal eggs for stem cell research to develop new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's.
2.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2437921,00.html
Doctors: let us kill disabled babies
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
Yay or nay?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
----------
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
Your post was clear and convincing, as usual.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, let's recap your "point". Fertilization has a "purpose" (a goal) which is to reproduce... humans, in this case. Therefore if you thwart the "purpose" of fertilization you're committing murder.
To go back to DT's concept of the 7:29 train, it's like looking at a pile of parts and saying.... those parts have a "purpose", which is to build the 7:29 train. Therefore, if you destroy those parts you've destroyed the "purpose" of those parts and therefore you've destroyed the train.
If I view fertilization as a PROCESS and not a PURPOSE then there is no innate ideal human just waiting to be developed, there is a series of changes which usually produces a human but often produces something else.
EDITED TO ADD: I realize it's an emotionally unfulfilling position in our idealist Judeo-Xtian culture.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Here is where embryonic stem cell reserarch might offer an answer. To date, scientists don't know how an embryo fails to differentiate. At this point, all they know is that there are no microscopically incipient embryonic structures. For example, there are no clusters of cells that go on to form the embryonic disc. As far as they can see, the embryo simply fails to form at the very earliest stages.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME