Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bad Kitty · 07-22-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

abe smith: THE WOMAN WHOSE BODY CONTAINS THE "UNBORN" ENTITY HAS ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION OVER IT/ITS EXISTENCE.

Says you. The SCOTUS says she "absolute jurisdiction" until the third trimester, then the law has something to say about it. My opinion is that you're both wrong.

Quote:

You (or anyone else)don't LIKE THAT? Then DON'T IMPREGNATE ANYONE!

Thanks, I won't. Being a woman, this is not a problem.

Quote:

The woman (left) holding the bag has absolute power over its contents.

What about women "not left holding the bag"? Where the man involved wishes to get married and raise his son or daughter, even though the pregnancy was unexpected. Should the woman still have absolute power the "bag's contents" (nice way to put it) then?

Quote:

In fact, I offer the biological fact, that a human conceptus is an absolute PARASITE in the body which contains it; and who here wd like to discuss THIS ?

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Pregnancy is still the way HUMAN children are born, or are you aware of some other non-parasitic method for producing children?

Quote:

I'd like to fling down another biological idea/argument; Someone aloft^here mentioned colon cancer. Now, human colon cancer is a collection of intensely-striving human cells. *HUMAN* cells, honeh; not aliens at all; legitimate members of the singular human body of which they are a part.

So are cysts and pimples and ovaries and eyeballs and atypical moles. However, none of these develop into human children do they?

Quote:

HENCE, I inquire >>> Do we not have a moral obligation to ALLOW THOSE HUMAN (holy?)
CELLS to continue to live & thrive?

Um, no. Again, the fatty cyst in my leg is not going to develop into a child. And since when is a pimple "holy"? I'm an atheist, nothing is "holy".

Quote:

Are they also not the "Work/Creatures Of GOD"? And therefore are we not obliged to transplant such cells (from the body they are about shortly to kill) into OTHER HUMAN BODIES? so as to allow those HUMAN cancer cells to live?

No, there is no "god", so I'm not obliged to do anything so stupid.

Quote:

My opinion is that human cancer cells have an absolute god-given right to exist; and that therefore we (as subjects of the Absolute Owner who created us all, including cancers) are absolutely-obliged to foster those growths......
Someone want to open a new thread on this topic?

Ok, feel free to nurture your cancer cells. As an actual cancer patient, I will continue to have mine removed as quickly as possible. As to another thread, go ahead, I�d be interested in the reasons why you want to keep a cancer cell.

Michelle

edited for typo

Roland98 · 07-22-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I can't find this on the page I quoted, but I'll accept this for the time being....I'm not paying for the privliege.

So did you look at the whole article or only the abstract? Since you couldn't link to the second one I provided (from the same journal), I'm guessing you only looked at the abstract to the paper.

Quote:

You guys need to get your stories together.

Our stories jibe completely--it's your premise (that flatline EEG is equivalent to non-consciousness) that has confused the issue. Both of us agree on the non-consciousness issue itself.

Here is another interesting NDE link. Since I wouldn't want to make you pay, I'll post some of the meaty parts here:

Quote:

van Lommel and colleagues ask, "How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?". But the truth is that nobody knows when the NDEs reported by these patients actually occurred. Was it really during the period of flat EEG or might they have occurred as the patients rapidly entered or gradually recovered from that state?

Elsewhere, Parnia and Fenwick have reviewed NDEs during cardiac arrest and have considered the latter possibility.[2] They think that such an explanation is unlikely, mainly because of anecdotal reports of patients accurately recalling events that took place during the actual cardiac arrest, apparently during the out-of-body experience (OBE) phase of the NDE. An OBE can be defined as an experience in which a person seems to perceive the world from a location outside the physical body. One such anecdote was reported to van Lommel and colleagues during the pilot phase of their study by a coronary-care-unit nurse. Unfortunately, they do not report whether any attempt was made to corroborate details with the patient. On many previous occasions such attempts at corroboration have revealed that the evidence was not as impressive as it initially seemed. [3] Blackmore [4] lists several alternative non-paranormal explanations as to why people may sometimes seem to accurately describe events occurring during their NDEs. These include "information available at the time, prior knowledge, fantasy or dreams, lucky guesses, and information from the remaining senses. Then there is selective memory for correct details, incorporation of details learned between the NDE and giving an account of it, and the tendency to tell a good story".

<snip>

van Lommel and colleagues' report raises the possibility of a new potential artefact in such studies. It seems that at least some NDEs may be the result of false memories, of the mind trying to retrospectively "fill in the gap" after a period of cortical inactivity. The investigators report that, at the 2-year follow-up, four of 37 patients contacted to act as controls (ie, people who had not initially reported an NDE) reported that they had had one. Although these patients represent fewer than 1% of the total sample, they represent over 10% of the 37 patients interviewed with a view to acting as controls. If this subsample is at all representative, it implies that around 30 patients from the sample of 282 who initially denied an NDE would, if they had survived for another 2 years, be claiming that they had had one.

(This article was published before the one I linked earlier, regarding flatline EEGs and consciousness.)

yguy · 07-22-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland98
Our stories jibe completely--it's your premise (that flatline EEG is equivalent to non-consciousness) that has confused the issue. Both of us agree on the non-consciousness issue itself.

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland98:
second, even though they were "flat-lining," they were indeed conscious, and also had brain activity.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick:
A person with a flat-line EEG is not conscious, and neither is a rock.

Ma'am, if you and I cannot agree that the statement "A has quality X" and the statement "A does NOT have quality X" are mutually exclusive and as contradictory as anything can possibly be, I'm afraid we have no basis for communication.

Dr Rick · 07-22-2003, 08:49 PM

Oh, good for you, yguy; you found an incongruity amongst the hordes that bristle and gasp at your streams of unsubstantiated pronouncements.

U da man, yguy, but please be aware that all this shows is that there is uncertainty about the nature of NDE's; and by the way, what do NDE's have to do with fetal brain function and when "life begins at what point?"

yguy · 07-22-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Oh, good for you, yguy; you found an incongruity amongst the hordes that bristle and gasp at your streams of unsubstantiated pronouncements.

Hey, it may not be any big deal in and of itself, but I can't waste time debating someone who is sanguine about glossing over such a glaring contradiction. If Roland98 can't admit she's wrong about a small thing, is admitting she's wrong about substantive issues going to be easier? I think not.

Quote:

U da man, yguy, but please be aware that all this shows is that there is uncertainty about the nature of NDE's;

And by extension, the nature of consciousness itself.

Quote:

and by the way, what do NDE's have to do with fetal brain function and when "life begins at what point?"

See above.

Roland98 · 07-23-2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Hey, it may not be any big deal in and of itself, but I can't waste time debating someone who is sanguine about glossing over such a glaring contradiction. If Roland98 can't admit she's wrong about a small thing, is admitting she's wrong about substantive issues going to be easier? I think not.

Excuse me? First, "not able to admit I'm wrong?" "Hi pot, you're black--from the kettle." Second, the paper I referenced above (which you didn't want to pay for) explicitly said that even those who have a flat-line EEG may be conscious--which would go a long way in explaining the NDEs they experience. Just because you're too cheap to pay for it or look it up in a library does not mean that I'm incorrect. It is NOT a "glaring contradiction" as both I and now Dr. Rick have pointed out:

Quote:

but please be aware that all this shows is that there is uncertainty about the nature of NDE's

and much of this uncertainly stems from the fact that EEGs were always taken to mean complete lack of consciousness--however, this is not always the case. From the article I linked earlier:

Quote:

Pim van Lommel and colleagues[1] ask, how could a clear consciousness outside the body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat electroencephalography?

Evidently, they assume that the brain may not function at this time. This assumption, however, is erroneous. Normal electroencephalography techniques can detect electrical activity in only one half of the area of cerebral cortex. Possible activity in the other half and deeper structures cannot be observed.

So the person may indeed have a flat EEG, but may retain some level of consciousnesss, explaining their NDE--which easily expains and refutes the paper you linked involving a NDE after flatline EEG.

And you never answered Dr. Rick's question, which is more important than any of these side issues and has more to do with the actual topic:

Quote:

Finally, do you understand why a rock is not conscious?

abe smith · 07-23-2003, 07:07 AM

my Baby Brother always says "Opinions are like belly-buttons; everybody has one, and there're many different kinds."
..... Also the old wisdom is that SATIRE is what closes on Saturday night >>> = As you see, you have made the error of supposing to be my *true* opinion my remarks about the holy right of human cancer cells to exist & to be protected.... Your response is essentially valid (And fer-sure your own personal experiences are as valid/persuasive as any data can be.); I shd have known better than to employ satire/mockery (after my rolemodels Voltaire & Swift...) to attack the arguments of the anti-Autonomists.
Just want to respond to you ,Michelle, that At My Age, and Weary of Earth & Burdened With My ... Experience, my "position" about the subject under discussion here is probably fixed, and not available now to alteration. I HAVE thought about it; and I too have immediate personal experience from wh I derive my *opinion(S)* (sic)
Uh, speaking biologically, ALL (human) cells are of equal value; and you can look-up the Roman Catholic *sect* s earlier position about all-that. (Funny thing is that they, those selfappointed male hierarch masturbators/lawgivers, have chosen to ignore the holy reality/value of all those SPERMATOZOA they loose onto the sheets. ) If you're going to base human
decisions on some sort of supra-human value system made by a (fictional, manmade) Deity, then you have to be consistent with that *choice* of yours; and follow-out to its most ABSURD reductios.
Is that YOUR bodymind there? And if it's NOT yours, WHO owns it? What does *your* mean, anyway?

Bad Kitty · 07-23-2003, 08:17 AM

Abe Smith,

Quote:

= As you see, you have made the error of supposing to be my *true* opinion my remarks about the holy right of human cancer cells to exist...

There was no error, I know you were being facetious in a satirical way.

My point was to show you that one can be against abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with a pretend god and his/her pretend rules.

Quote:

Uh, speaking biologically, ALL (human) cells are of equal value

Who is assigning the "value"? If it is me, even when I'm "speaking biologically", then this statement is not true. I will value certain cells (perhaps those that make up my brain) over others (those that make up my left pinky toe). I also think that if my "body", completely separate from my "mind/consciousness", could decide the value of the cells within it, I don't think it would value all cells equally.

Quote:

...my "position" about the subject under discussion here is probably fixed, and not available now to alteration.

I won't try to change your opinion; I'm too tired myself.

But it is nice to exchange ideas, yes?

Michelle

yguy · 07-23-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland98
It is NOT a "glaring contradiction" as both I and now Dr. Rick have pointed out:

I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding. He essentially admitted the discrepancy, euphemistically referring to it as an "incongruity". He says a flatline EEG means no consciousness. You say it doesn't. One of you is either mistaken or lying. Your desire to believe your ideas and Dr Rick's are in concert obviously outweighs your desire to see the obvious. When you are able to admit that, our discussion on the matter can continue. Not before.

abe smith · 07-23-2003, 09:26 AM

That all (the) bodily cells are of equal value....
I just flung down this sentence beore thinking too far about it.... Altho thinking about it now, I do still side w/ that statement.

If your (contrary) opinion is, that some bodily cells are valuable, and others are not; or that some bodily calls are more valuable than othe bodily cells are, we might have a discussion about this disagreement...

I think the point of my assertion ( = "biological") may be that *value* in this matter is a man-made category, which is not found in the non-human cosmos. (Izz there a "non-human cosmos"?)

Questions: 1. As you seem to be distinguishing your "body" from your "mind-spirit" (Am I reading you correctly?). ought I to infer that you consider those to be two (=at least two) separate entities? I myself ('probably") refuse (as the sort of biologist I define myself to be, okay?) to separate my "self" into separate parts... For example, I hold that the mindbody(&whatever-else) is ONE "thing"/entity. I think (sic) that thinking is a bodily event; a neurophysiological process = the behaviour of cells & tissues.
2. If *value* inheres , who or what puts it there? Is *value* (abstract value?) determined by your personal opinion? Or are your evaluations/value judgements given to you from some exterior source? (From *what* source?)
3. Are there values other than manmade /man-assigned ones? If there are, where do those come from? E.g. why is a brain-cell more-"valuable" than a skin-cell at the end of your little toe? .....
If you're too tired & overwhelmed to want to bother w/ this stuff

you KNOW I understand that! I'm probably too tired to want to discuss All-This either....
maybe we just ought to let it go. Yes Michelle, I do agree that thinking/discussing these matters certainly izz interesting; but I know also that there are/may be matters more important/ necessary to spend time/ effort on. All good wishes, Grandpa

View Poll Results: when does a human being have access to the protection of the laws of our land?
after conception	9	12.86%
3 months after conception	7	10.00%
6 months after conception	15	21.43%
9 months after conception	3	4.29%
after birth	33	47.14%
18 years after birth	3	4.29%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

07-23-2003, 07:07 AM	#157
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Well, Michelle.... my Baby Brother always says "Opinions are like belly-buttons; everybody has one, and there're many different kinds." ..... Also the old wisdom is that SATIRE is what closes on Saturday night >>> = As you see, you have made the error of supposing to be my true opinion my remarks about the holy right of human cancer cells to exist & to be protected.... Your response is essentially valid (And fer-sure your own personal experiences are as valid/persuasive as any data can be.); I shd have known better than to employ satire/mockery (after my rolemodels Voltaire & Swift...) to attack the arguments of the anti-Autonomists. Just want to respond to you ,Michelle, that At My Age, and Weary of Earth & Burdened With My ... Experience, my "position" about the subject under discussion here is probably fixed, and not available now to alteration. I HAVE thought about it; and I too have immediate personal experience from wh I derive my opinion(S) (sic) Uh, speaking biologically, ALL (human) cells are of equal value; and you can look-up the Roman Catholic sect s earlier position about all-that. (Funny thing is that they, those selfappointed male hierarch masturbators/lawgivers, have chosen to ignore the holy reality/value of all those SPERMATOZOA they loose onto the sheets. ) If you're going to base human decisions on some sort of supra-human value system made by a (fictional, manmade) Deity, then you have to be consistent with that choice of yours; and follow-out to its most ABSURD reductios. Is that YOUR bodymind there? And if it's NOT yours, WHO owns it? What does your mean, anyway?

07-23-2003, 09:26 AM	#160
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Michelle, my unsubstantiated assertion That all (the) bodily cells are of equal value.... I just flung down this sentence beore thinking too far about it.... Altho thinking about it now, I do still side w/ that statement. If your (contrary) opinion is, that some bodily cells are valuable, and others are not; or that some bodily calls are more valuable than othe bodily cells are, we might have a discussion about this disagreement... I think the point of my assertion ( = "biological") may be that value in this matter is a man-made category, which is not found in the non-human cosmos. (Izz there a "non-human cosmos"?) Questions: 1. As you seem to be distinguishing your "body" from your "mind-spirit" (Am I reading you correctly?). ought I to infer that you consider those to be two (=at least two) separate entities? I myself ('probably") refuse (as the sort of biologist I define myself to be, okay?) to separate my "self" into separate parts... For example, I hold that the mindbody(&whatever-else) is ONE "thing"/entity. I think (sic) that thinking is a bodily event; a neurophysiological process = the behaviour of cells & tissues. 2. If value inheres , who or what puts it there? Is value (abstract value?) determined by your personal opinion? Or are your evaluations/value judgements given to you from some exterior source? (From what source?) 3. Are there values other than manmade /man-assigned ones? If there are, where do those come from? E.g. why is a brain-cell more-"valuable" than a skin-cell at the end of your little toe? ..... If you're too tired & overwhelmed to want to bother w/ this stuff you KNOW I understand that! I'm probably too tired to want to discuss All-This either.... maybe we just ought to let it go. Yes Michelle, I do agree that thinking/discussing these matters certainly izz interesting; but I know also that there are/may be matters more important/ necessary to spend time/ effort on. All good wishes, Grandpa

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2003, 08:49 PM	#154
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Oh, good for you, yguy; you found an incongruity amongst the hordes that bristle and gasp at your streams of unsubstantiated pronouncements. U da man, yguy, but please be aware that all this shows is that there is uncertainty about the nature of NDE's; and by the way, what do NDE's have to do with fetal brain function and when "life begins at what point?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.