Doctors charged with murder - Page 13 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**181** 01-04-2012, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

C'mon people, get your dying' asses up on the scales!

I don't think so. For starters, you are going to have to be sealed up so that nothing physical can be escaping.

MTI · #**182** 01-04-2012, 12:06 AM

I reject MacDougall's belief that animals, particularly dogs, have no soul. His findings that there was no change in weight meant that they were not granted "souls" and therefore likely ineligible for "heaven" would mean an afterlife that many would find unbearable.

Botnst · #**183** 01-04-2012, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't think so. For starters, you are going to have to be sealed up so that nothing physical can be escaping.

You're exactly on the right track -- repeat the experiment but with better controls. That is the essence of the scientific process. usually the discovery thus made results in improved techniques, not in confirming a wholly new field of research. And that's a good outcome in itself. Like the so-called 'cold fusion'. But sometimes, rarely, something new does occur. Those moments are golden.

Botnst · #**184** 01-04-2012, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

I reject MacDougall's belief that animals, particularly dogs, have no soul.

I reject your belief that dogs have a soul.

Dueling dying dogs! Scales at 40 paces!

You first, sir!

Honus · #**185** 01-04-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Why not? If it is not alive, where is the question. If you want to claim it is a living human being, don't you think you should use the same tests? You cannot claim it is a living human being without using the very same tests that determines what a living human being is. If you killed my dog, can I charge you for killing a human being? Probably not since it doesn't qualify. Other charges, yes.

I'm not claiming that a fetus is a human being, nor am I saying that a fetus is not a human being. I happen to think that a fetus is a human being, but that is not the relevant question, IMHO. The relevant question is whether we want a law that protects the fetus even if that protection comes at the expense of the mother's liberty. I don't see how medical science can answer that question. It's a value judgment that society makes through its lawmakers. Just as we have laws prohibiting you from killing me, stealing my property, or destroying my car, we have laws prohibiting mothers from terminating their pregnancies. It's a value judgment that balances one interest against the other. It's an impossible question to answer, but I would have more respect for pro-choice advocates if they admitted that they value a woman's liberty more than they value a non-viable fetus.

aklim · #**186** 01-04-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You're exactly on the right track -- repeat the experiment but with better controls. That is the essence of the scientific process. usually the discovery thus made results in improved techniques, not in confirming a wholly new field of research. And that's a good outcome in itself. Like the so-called 'cold fusion'. But sometimes, rarely, something new does occur. Those moments are golden.

Way better controls. But even if there is a difference, how do you know it is the soul? Knowing there is a weight difference is very different from knowing why the difference is there. You might have to put it into the "I don't know" group for a while. Conveniently plugging in an answer is a VERY BAD way of proceeding in any experiment. Simply having an answer for the sake of an answer so you don't have to say the 3 dreaded words "I don't know" is very bad science. IDK however, is the start for investigation.

Honus · #**187** 01-04-2012, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I reject your belief that dogs have a soul.

Dueling dying dogs! Scales at 40 paces!

You first, sir!

You're going to lose that bet. Pound for pound, dogs have at least as much soul as we do.

Honus · #**188** 01-04-2012, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The world is more strange than we wish and soon, beyond what we can presently imagine. Biology is on the curve where electronics were in the 1950's and 1960's -- Frieden electromechanical calculating machines, selectric typewriters, and transistors. Just a hint of IC's. Back then the IBM PC was beyond imagination except in the most daring of sci-fi circles. That's where we are at present in biology. Daring to imagine where we will be with biology in 40 years is beyond my imagination.

That's for sure (I think).

As J.B.S. Haldane said:

Quote:

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

J. B. S. Haldane - Wikiquote

aklim · #**189** 01-04-2012, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I'm not claiming that a fetus is a human being, nor am I saying that a fetus is not a human being. I happen to think that a fetus is a human being, but that is not the relevant question, IMHO.

The relevant question is whether we want a law that protects the fetus even if that protection comes at the expense of the mother's liberty. I don't see how medical science can answer that question. It's a value judgment that society makes through its lawmakers.

Just as we have laws prohibiting you from killing me, stealing my property, or destroying my car, we have laws prohibiting mothers from terminating their pregnancies. It's a value judgment that balances one interest against the other. It's an impossible question to answer, but I would have more respect for pro-choice advocates if they admitted that they value a woman's liberty more than they value a non-viable fetus.

But if it is a human being then it is no longer a ball of cells or say a tumor. In which case, it does trigger that discussion. If it is a human being then we have to make careful decisions. If it is as alive as a mole then there is no discussion. You don't really think much about removing a mole, tumor, etc, etc. OTOH, if you are talking about even executing a criminal, we best be sure about what we are doing.

Fair enough but don't we have to decide whether the fetus is going to be considered "alive" for want of a better word or not? Shouldn't I determine if you are legally allowed to vote before we bother with who you voted for?

Since I don't hang around the pro-choice or pro-life group, I can't say why they are doing what they are doing specifically. I would imagine that a woman's reproductive liberty is an issue, just as there might be other issues. In my case, I am pro-choice simply because I don't see that it is a life we are talking about although that is not the only reason. Even if it was a life we are talking about, it is very difficult for me to accept that the woman should be forced to play host against her will. For instance, if by expelling me out of your house in the blizzard I will probably die before I get to any shelter, should you be forced to keep me regardless of your desire to expel me? I think not. Can you, at any point change your mind even if you invited me to your house and just toss me out? Absolutely.

aklim · #**190** 01-04-2012, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

You're going to lose that bet. Pound for pound, dogs have at least as much soul as we do.

Seriously, if they had a soul and we could see our dogs that passed, it would make an afterlife worth some thought (not saying worthwhile) to me. Without that, WGAS. I'd rather not bother with it if I had my druthers.

davidmash · #**191** 01-04-2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It makes sense, David. It is an incredibly difficult topic that has tied sentient humans in knots for as long as history. People who have simple answers are to be envied in some degree.

I tend to think of life as binary -- on or off, no half-measures. But I have a very creepy feeling that medical science will soon prove my conjecture is wrong. For instance, I read an article recently which suggested that biologists will soon be able to produce animal flesh for harvesting without bothering to grow a whole organism. Does that pound of ground round without a body have the same veterinary considerations as 'animals'? It's gonna get a lot weirder in our lifetime than we are prepared to deal with.

I think the whole deal with sentience is at least as tricky. You an I agree that reaction to stimuli at the base instinctual level is pretty damned primitive life. We probably also agree that we should treat apes with almost the same consideration as we have for Homo sapiens. Where do the severely mentally retarded or insane humans fit on that scale of apes-to-man? Or how much tissue can we carve from the human being before he is no longer human but still sentient? Or what do we do when we have sentient computers -- maybe in our lifetime?

It's gonna be spooky, weird, and tragic, IMO.

I do not think skin being cloned in a dish will be considered a life. If you clone a walking talking mini me then we have an issue. I think there are some gray areas and this is not one of them. When a fetus become a baby is up for debate and I don't know where to draw that line.

I agree that is is is alive or not but where that line is who knows and I do not think we will all agree on that.

aklim · #**192** 01-04-2012, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I do not think skin being cloned in a dish will be considered a life. If you clone a walking talking mini me then we have an issue. I think there are some gray areas and this is not one of them. When a fetus become a baby is up for debate and I don't know where to draw that line.

I agree that is is is alive or not but where that line is who knows and I do not think we will all agree on that.

That piece of skin, while it is alive from the standpoint that it is living cells is, IMO about as alive as a fetus. Both have living cells but I don't see how we can consider them as alive as you, I or your mini-me clone. As said, I'm game for abortion at any time the woman chooses. However, if it comes after a certain period where we can test the fetus to see if it passes the test we use to determine death, we should. If the woman still wants to go on, I would be fine if she wanted to perform a c-section and gives up all rights to the child.

But in that case, if it lacks science to say if it is alive or not at a given point, shouldn't it be a personal choice, best left to the person's conscience or whatever you call it? After all, she is the host and shouldn't she have the right to eject the guest at will? If it isn't her body, whose is it?

amosfella · #**193** 01-04-2012, 02:14 AM

Here's something no one is saying... If she doesn't want to be a mother or not ready to be, she shouldn't be spreading her legs and doing the action that causes babies to be born... Very simple solution, but it's one that no one wants to accept... It's a patriarchal conspiracy theory used to keep women from advancing, didn't you know...
I do however realize that some women get raped, and for those that actually are (and aren't claiming to be for attention, get out of other trouble, revenge, etc.) they have my regret for that happening.
However, we've become a society where we don't think about consequences of our actions, and we don't want to be responsible for the consequences of our actions, so we go on trying to fix the problem so we can avoid the consequences and in the end cause more damage.
Maybe completely defunding abortions, and making the would be mother who wants it pay for it out of their pocket, and teaching abstinence till you are able to take care and want kids (in my opinion preferably in a marriage) could end this debate...
As for those who will argue that it's putting women's lives at risk, and that those women will try to kill the fetus at home, and possibly kill themselves in the process, I just have one question... Isn't evolution the survival of the fittest?? If they die like that, are they the fittest?? You keep talking about the next stage in our evolution, and maybe this is it...

MS Fowler · #**194** 01-04-2012, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I'm not claiming that a fetus is a human being, nor am I saying that a fetus is not a human being. I happen to think that a fetus is a human being, but that is not the relevant question, IMHO. The relevant question is whether we want a law that protects the fetus even if that protection comes at the expense of the mother's liberty. I don't see how medical science can answer that question. It's a value judgment that society makes through its lawmakers. Just as we have laws prohibiting you from killing me, stealing my property, or destroying my car, we have laws prohibiting mothers from terminating their pregnancies. It's a value judgment that balances one interest against the other. It's an impossible question to answer, but I would have more respect for pro-choice advocates if they admitted that they value a woman's liberty more than they value a non-viable fetus.

I think I agree with your assessment. I might want to call attention to the difference between "liberty", and "license". Is it appropriate that the mother's liberty comes at the expense of the child?

The biblical argument that might be appropriate is that its always good to defend the defenseless. The baby, ( or fetus, if you will) is the most defenseless human--should society NOT defend? It does,ultimately come to the value of life--is it highly valuable or cheap? Even this can be a trap---if we then take a position that all human life must be preserved no matter the cost, then we arrive at some pretty interesting conundrums--is war permissible? can we execute criminals?
Be careful.....

Botnst · #**195** 01-04-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Way better controls. But even if there is a difference, how do you know it is the soul? Knowing there is a weight difference is very different from knowing why the difference is there. You might have to put it into the "I don't know" group for a while. Conveniently plugging in an answer is a VERY BAD way of proceeding in any experiment. Simply having an answer for the sake of an answer so you don't have to say the 3 dreaded words "I don't know" is very bad science. IDK however, is the start for investigation.

That is exactly the role taht the ether played for centuries. It was a convenient explanation for an inexplicable phenomenon. The concept of the ether did not impede science. It simply was proven to be irrelevant. You could still use it and in a way, it is making a comeback in cosmology as "dark matter."

If the 'soul' works as an explanation until a better one arises from the dead, use it.