Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

You forgot to add a chicken egg.  An egg is not chicken, it will turn into an embryo, then into a chick, right?

No eggs do not spontaneously transform into embryos. The kind of eggs you buy at the store are not embryos they are just eggs. They never had any chance of becoming a chicken.

You are confusing yourself and attempting to mislead anyone reading this thread with your constant use of disingenuous and misleading language. An egg is not an embryo. The egg will not spontaneously do anything other then sit there. The embryo is the first stage of a new living organism and it will will spontaneously develop into a living adult.

[CoinCube]

A chicken is not a fertilized egg, right?
A fertilized egg is not a chicken, right?

PS. I don't buy eggs at the store. LOL.  I get them from my chicken house.

A chicken embryo is a very young chicken at the start of its life.

I mean seriously use your eyes and look at the picture of the embryo I posted immediately above. You can call it a "fertilized egg" all you want. Its obviously very young chicken about to come out of its shell.

You can go find pictures of chicken embryo younger then 14 days old that are clearly not ready to leave their shells. They will look less and less recognizable the younger they are until you get back to the single cell stage once more. That does not change anything those are still chickens. They are chickens in their very earliest stages of development and unrecognizable visually for what they are but they are chickens nevertheless.

[CoinCube]

Yes that is a chicken embryo. This one was killed probably for this photo but had it not been killed and had it been kept warm between 99 and 102 degrees Fahrenheit it would have grown into a baby chick in less then 21 days.

For those who don't know. Chicken eggs purchased at stores are eggs not embryos. They lack the small embryonic tissue highlighted in af_newbies photo.    

I am talking about fertilized chicken eggs.  Focus, doctor, focus.  Is this a chicken, doctor?

It was the very beginning of a new chicken life. It is a dead chicken.

[77alex777]

I had an IQ of 160 once upon a time. It's probably about 100 less now. I regard the religious as mentally ill. I have zero desire to procreate and think the world's a fuckhole. Hey, I guess you're right.

I'm sorry, but your IQ is probably already 159 less than it was. You didn't say absolutely nothing reasonable. Just an ordinary man in the street who wants to just laugh on the Internet.

[CoinCube]

...
With your logical fallacy, we might as well call everything alive a living organism and throw away all the descriptions we have developed over the years to properly describe living organisms, name them, categorize and identify different stages of their development.  You can take your analogy even further and say that some atoms in the universe are 'future chicken in progress'.  LOL.
...

The only logical fallacy is yours. The start of life the moment of conception is the only clear and objective metric possible use when differentiating life from non-life. Any other division or "personhood metric" is utterly subjective. BADecker summed it up well above. Your failure to understand it is just that your failure.

...
Removing a human life is different that removing a wart.

Determining when the embryo/fetus becomes a human life is judgmental. Nobody can make such a determination accurately. To do so means that the judgment could be at age 10, or at age 20, or at any other age. This is part of the reason we have wars. One group of humans says that another group of humans should be exterminated.
...
A fertilized human egg is simply a stage in human life. Legal murder at this stage sets the stage to make it legal at any stage.
...

What you can't seem to grasp is that you are accepting the moral exclusion of a vast portion of humanity. Such a process taken to its logical conclusion can just as easily be turned against you or more likely your descendants. A genetically engineered and "superior" branch of humanity may decide that your obvious inferiority makes you not a "real person" and mark you down for liquidation. Or perhaps an AI vastly superior to you in all ways will examine you as you examine the human embryo and decide that you are so far below its level of awareness that you don't count as conscious. After all is it not just to apply your own logical framework upon you? You may dismiss these possibilities as far fetched but technology is marching us day by day to the point where they will be very possible.

[CoinCube]

Chick is not the same as a chicken.  An embryo is not the same as a chick, a fertilized egg is not the same as an embryo. And finally, a fertilized egg is not the same as a chicken.

Their genome is the same but they are not the same.

Of course organisms are not "the same" at each stage of their life cycle. That is not the point and your language remains sloppy. You are not the same as you were 10 years ago or the same as you will be 10 years hence. Nevertheless you are human aka homo sapien at all points in your changing life and entitled to basic human rights throughout. 

Similarly the chicken is not the same at the various stages of its life but it is still a chicken Gallus gallus domesticus throughout each stage of its development and life.

Your problem is you want to take a portion of the homo sapiens species and arbitrary declare it non human based presumably on your personal desire to profit directly or indirectly via the scientific gains you feel the death and dismemberment of such individuals will afford you. That is wrong but you have somehow blinded yourself to that fact.

[BADecker]

Chick is not the same as a chicken.  An embryo is not the same as a chick, a fertilized egg is not the same as an embryo. And finally, a fertilized egg is not the same as a chicken.

Their genome is the same but they are not the same.

Of course organisms are not "the same" at each stage of their life cycle. That is not the point and your language remains sloppy. You are not the same as you were 10 years ago or the same as you will be 10 years hence. Nevertheless you are human aka homo sapien at all points in your changing life and entitled to basic human rights throughout.  

Similarly the chicken is not the same at the various stages of its life but it is still a chicken Gallus gallus domesticus throughout each stage of its development and life.

Your problem is you want to take a portion of the homo sapiens species and arbitrary declare it non human based presumably on your personal desire to profit directly or indirectly via the scientific gains you feel the death and dismemberment of such individuals will afford you. That is wrong but you have somehow blinded yourself to that fact.

Ok, at least you understand that they are not the same.

So a fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being, right?  Do you agree?

No two people are exactly the same. So, which of them are human and which aren't?

The DNA of the fertilized egg is the same as the DNA of the adult. Both are human. They are simply at different stages of their life.

[BADecker]

Two people are human beings.  Two fertilized human eggs are two fertilized human eggs.

A fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being (a newborn child), right?

Fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as human newborn babies from which they have developed, right?

You are getting sooo good.

A coffin is often the result of a human fertilized egg... hopefully 90 or a hundred years down the road.

A baby before it poops its diaper is not the same as it is after it poops its diaper.

90-y-o people are not the same as the 20-y-o people they have developed from.

[BADecker]

Two people are human beings.  Two fertilized human eggs are two fertilized human eggs.

A fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being (a newborn child), right?

Fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as human newborn babies from which they have developed, right?

You are getting sooo good.

A coffin is often the result of a human fertilized egg... hopefully 90 or a hundred years down the road.

A baby before it poops its diaper is not the same as it is after it poops its diaper.

90-y-o people are not the same as the 20-y-o people they have developed from.

So don't tell me that I am killing babies when I destroy fertilized eggs.

Case closed.

Destroying dead fertilized eggs isn't killing babies.

Destroying live, fertilized, human eggs is killing human beings - people.

[BADecker]

Two people are human beings.  Two fertilized human eggs are two fertilized human eggs.

A fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being (a newborn child), right?

Fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as human newborn babies from which they have developed, right?

You are getting sooo good.

A coffin is often the result of a human fertilized egg... hopefully 90 or a hundred years down the road.

A baby before it poops its diaper is not the same as it is after it poops its diaper.

90-y-o people are not the same as the 20-y-o people they have developed from.

So don't tell me that I am killing babies when I destroy fertilized eggs.

Case closed.

Destroying dead fertilized eggs isn't killing babies.

Destroying live, fertilized, human eggs is killing human beings - people.

I thought you agreed that LIVE fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as LIVE human babies?

Anyway, it was fun talking to both of you.  Looks like you have some mental issues going on so I won't bother you.

Take care.

I thought you agreed that nobody is the same from one day to the next?

Looks like you have some denial issues going on.

The major idea of all the rhetoric is to get you to see that you are thinking way off-base, and that such thinking is a religion for you, that will ultimately wreck your health... even your health for eternity.

We don't know that you are truly locked in to your current attitude, but if I did, I would be posting differently. And maybe you would be, too.

[IadixDev]

Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.

Ontologically speaking even a stone is a being 

[IadixDev]

Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.

Ontologically speaking even a stone is a being  

So now we play with words.

You know what I meant, a sentient being, not that it merely exists.

Words are important

Edelman and the likes show that its not that easy to know where sentience and consciousness really starts or ends.

At which point you consider a cell or a group of cell is sentient or not ?

[BADecker]

When a 40-year-old man is killed, nobody in their right mind would say that an alive fertilized egg has been killed.
We would say a human being has been killed.  

Why?  Because a fertilized egg is not a human being, dead or alive.  

That is why it is nonsensical to say that a human being has been killed when an alive fertilized egg has been destroyed.

All you can say, alive fertilized eggs have been destroyed.

Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.

When a 40-y-o dies, we say a person dies. When a fertilized egg dies, we say a fertilized egg dies. The reason we don't say person with the egg is that the egg is a human in progress. But really, so is the 40-y-o.

Just because we say something one way or another, doesn't mean that we are denying that a fertilized egg is a human being.

The denial that a fertilized egg is a human being is a denial. The acceptance of a fertilized egg being a human being is the acceptance of such. None of it depends on what we say.

In other words, if a fertilized egg dies, someone might say, "A human being just died." Another person might say, "We don't usually say it this way, but you are right."



EDIT: When you are asleep, you are not conscious. Does this mean that you are not a human being when you are asleep? What about in a coma? Does someone stop being human just because he is in a coma?

[BADecker]

When a 40-year-old man is killed, nobody in their right mind would say that an alive fertilized egg has been killed.
We would say a human being has been killed.  

Why?  Because a fertilized egg is not a human being, dead or alive.  

That is why it is nonsensical to say that a human being has been killed when an alive fertilized egg has been destroyed.

All you can say, alive fertilized eggs have been destroyed.

Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.

When a 40-y-o dies, we say a person dies. When a fertilized egg dies, we say a fertilized egg dies. The reason we don't say person with the egg is that the egg is a human in progress. But really, so is the 40-y-o.

Just because we say something one way or another, doesn't mean that we are denying that a fertilized egg is a human being.

The denial that a fertilized egg is a human being is a denial. The acceptance of a fertilized egg being a human being is the acceptance of such. None of it depends on what we say.

In other words, if a fertilized egg dies, someone might say, "A human being just died." Another person might say, "We don't usually say it this way, but you are right."



EDIT: When you are asleep, you are not conscious. Does this mean that you are not a human being when you are asleep? What about in a coma? Does someone stop being human just because he is in a coma?

Just because something "could become" does not mean it "is".  Deal with reality, not what you want it to be.

The fertilized, living egg IS a human being. That's the point.

[BADecker]

The fertilized, living egg IS a human being. That's the point.

You are a moron.  No amount of evidence will change your mind.

Well, you're mor-off than mor-on. However, to quote another post in this thread, "No amount of evidence will change your mind."

[CoinCube]

The fertilized, living egg IS a human being. That's the point.

You are a moron.  No amount of evidence will change your mind.

Well, you're mor-off than mor-on. However, to quote another post in this thread, "No amount of evidence will change your mind."

Af_newbie you do realize that 50% of the US population is prolife don’t you?

United States anti-abortion movement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_anti-abortion_movement

The United States anti-abortion movement (or the pro-life movement or right-to-life movement) contains elements opposing induced abortion on both moral and sectarian grounds and supports its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally argue that human life begins at conception and that the human zygote (or embryo or fetus) is a person and therefore has a right to life.

Public opinion is slowly shifting on this topic and we are waking up from our stupor of institutionalized violence against the unborn.



I suspect current trends will continue and society will one day look back on our murderous crimes against the unborn with the same horror we now reserve for other great crimes against humanity.

[CoinCube]

Truth is not a popularity vote.

It does not matter how many people are for it or against it.  

Hey we agree on something for once. I am with you on this one something is true or false moral or immoral inherently and objectivity and it really does not matter if it is a majority or a minority that is able see to understand that truth.

However, I am surprised to see this line argument from you. It was not that long ago when you said this.

morality is relative and is not absolute.

So are you a believer now in objective truth and objective morality?

...
Nature is teeming with life.  We grow life in factories just to kill it at a tender age.  We grow life only to cut it just when the seeds mature. We spray chemicals with no end to kill animals and ourselves.

People who scream they are "pro-life" have no problem ordering a steak or veal, eat eggs and whole animals or use services of the in-vitro clinic. It is really comical.
...
And the same parrots have no problem going to war and kill children, as long as they are not from their tribe.
...
Crimes against humanity? LOL.  What about human crimes against nature?  They are not important in your book, I guess.
Me, me, me. Humanity is a plague.

Sounds like you have figured out that mankind is fallen. We indeed commit many crimes against nature which we have stewardship over. However, we will never be able to stop those crimes unless we first stop committing crimes against ourselves.

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.

Revelations 12:12
woe to the earth and the sea

[BADecker]

Truth is not a popularity vote.

It does not matter how many people are for it or against it.  

Hey we agree on something for once. I am with you on this one something is true or false moral or immoral inherently and objectivity and it really does not matter if it is a majority or a minority that is able see to understand that truth.

However, I am surprised to see this line argument from you. It was not that long ago when you said this.

morality is relative and is not absolute.

So are you a believer now in objective truth and objective morality?

...
Nature is teeming with life.  We grow life in factories just to kill it at a tender age.  We grow life only to cut it just when the seeds mature. We spray chemicals with no end to kill animals and ourselves.

People who scream they are "pro-life" have no problem ordering a steak or veal, eat eggs and whole animals or use services of the in-vitro clinic. It is really comical.
...
And the same parrots have no problem going to war and kill children, as long as they are not from their tribe.
...
Crimes against humanity? LOL.  What about human crimes against nature?  They are not important in your book, I guess.
Me, me, me. Humanity is a plague.

Sounds like you have figured out that mandkind is fallen. We indeed commit many crimes against nature which we have stewardship over. However, we will never be able to stop these crimes unless we first stop committing crimes against ourselves.

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.

Revelations 12:12
woe to the earth and the sea...

... 'cause the Devil has gone down to you.     

[BADecker]

Where's af_newbie?

Oh, his mom aborted him.

[CoinCube]

The scientific method is objective.  This is the best epistemic tool we have to discover what is true and what is false.
...  
Morality aside, I am not sure we'll ever move up on the Kardashev scale. Unless we drop the ancient myths and embrace science and technology.  You are an MD and you are against stem cell research, a case in point.  Imagine what all other less educated simpletons think
of science.

For the record I am not opposed to stem cell research in general. I am opposed to human embryonic stem cell research for reasons we have discussed ad infinitum.

The scientific method can only tell you what you can do. It will never tell you what you should do. You want to advance civilization on the Kardashev scale. Ok why do you want to do that?  This is your judgement of our species.

Me, me, me. Humanity is a plague.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this quote describing both the problem and the source of the problem which is not a lack of science but a lack of selflessness. There certainly is goodness in humanity worth preserving yet it is not at all unreasonable to describe us as you do.

Technological progress up the Kardashev scale does nothing to solve the problem. In fact it makes the problem worse by spreading it out farther and giving us more power to use unwisely. Transforming us from a plague upon the earth into an eternal plague upon the universe does not strike me as an admirable purpose.

Our purpose must be something more then simple propagation or genetic success as that road is clearly a dead end. The writing is already on the wall that our technological progress will soon obsolete our genetics.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

The only solution to the problem of humanity is for us all to strive for selflessness which also requires us to be superrational. Our species is very bad at that.

See: Superrationality
and
See: Multiverse Wide Cooperation

Religion is the only thing capable of rectifying mankind. It is also the only force that can somewhat mitigate our selfishness problem on this earth.