Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Czernobog]

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Well it's a separate individual because it has it's own DNA, heartbeat, brain activity, circulatory and nervous system, etc. And it's alive because you want to kill it. So we agree it is an organism, a human organism that is living in the state of being

None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.

You maintain that the caretaker gets to decide what to do. Of course, we are not having an argument over what the current law allows, that's kind of stupid. The question is, should another human being have the autonomous right to end that human being's life at any stage of development an for any reason whatsoever? I don't think they should.

Caretaker is your euphamism, not mine. I called the person what they are - a host. The answer to your question is, of course, there are circumstances at which a human being has the right to end the life of another human being. We already do. We disconnect life support from vegetative patients. We exercise capital punishment. And we have abortions.

Using your "viability" standard or it's ability to "beg you not to kill it" then we could easily make it legal for mothers to kill their children up to two years old or more. Granted, little kids can be a real pain in the ass... so maybe that's the standard you think we should set... if the "host" wants to do that?

No, you can't. Viability is only a pre-natal measurement. It has nothing to do with pre-communicative children.

 

[Boss]

Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period.

Then you are applying an impossible standard that no reasonable fetus could be expected to adhere to. It would be no different than saying you don't have Constitutional rights unless you can survive an hour under water. In the fetal stage of development, a womb is the expected environment. Removing the fetus from the womb is removing it from it's expected environment, then demanding it doesn't have rights unless it can survive.

 

[Boss]

None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.

All of it functions independently from the host. It IS an independent organism, else you wouldn't need to kill it. And it's going to rely on it's "host" for the next 18 years... maybe 26 if Obamacare mandates remain. Children's reliance on parents don't change what they are.

 

[Boss]

there are circumstances at which a human being has the right to end the life of another human being. We already do. We disconnect life support from vegetative patients. We exercise capital punishment. And we have abortions.

Oh, I am well aware of what the laws are and what we allow. Is that what you thought we were debating here? We're having a conversation about morals and ethics, and you think human life has no real value until it meets some arbitrary threshold where you deem it has value.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the decision is for the woman to make in regards to the existing remedies available in pursuit of their own livelihood in whatever society they may reside.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why is it OK to kill a man in the act of rape, but not execute him after he's convicted of it? What is wrong with rape anyway? If some men wrote the 10 Commandments way back when, wouldn't you imagine that they would make raping women OK? I mean, everyone in Hollywood seems to have done it to one degree or another. And the recent movies all seem to show women wanting to be fondled... Yet the Bible clearly names rape a capital offence with very few exceptions. And it seems to be truly Christians who are rather prudish with regard to sex (though marriage is another issue ---- 8 kids is a lot don't you think?).

Okay, first. Rape. Is. Not. A. Sexual. Act. It is an act of control, and violence. So, if a woman forced you to the ground, ripped off your clothes, and forcibly fucked you up the ass with a strap-on, you wouldn't feel violated, or angry? Unless you're a sociopath, of course you would. Well?!?!? What makes you think it is any different for women? So, why would you think that it is perfectly okay to do something to a woman that you would not want done to you?

As to the execution question, I understand that I was not being exact enough in my example. Executing a criminal is, for me, a grey area. I personally think that the burden of proof for execution should be required to be higher than for any other punishment. Because with every other punishment, if we get it wrong, we can release you, pay you ****-tons of money as recompense for our error, and send you on to the rest of your life. Once you're executed, if we were wrong, well...you're still kinda executed. Sucks to be you. So, in my mind, the death penalty should require not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it should require "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If you cannot prove to that level of certainty that an accused person did that of which they are accused, then you should not be able to execute them.

That being said, execution is a matter of meting out justice, and should be performed by an uninvolved party. When an aggrieved party does the executing, it is no longer about justice; it has become an act of vengeance. And vengeance is an unhealthy pursuit.

Maybe you should be asking some of the Muslim Extremest this question? The Bible records, "Vengeance is Mine!" says the Lord. However, He also expects the officials that He has placed in power to do their duty when required! And it seems to me that Hollywood talks out of both sides of its mouth. It releases smut and then wonders how on earth can people perform such nasty things? It presents sex in the most vulgar and demeaning light and then expects those dishing out such trash to behave morally straight! Clearly, even you should observe that one reaps exactly what one sows!

Oh, what an irresponsible, finger-pointing load of shit! Movies are not responsible for ;people being assholes. Music is not responsible for people being assholes. Video games are not the reason for people being assholes. Books are not the reason for people being assholes. The devil didn't make any of them "do it". People are assholes because they choose to be assholes. Position #6: Take ******* responsibility for your ******* choices! Don't wait for God to kiss your boo-boo, and make it all better. Don't blame others for your choices. Make your ******* choices, and ******* own them!

You have to be the most vulgar thoughtless person... I guess I must chalk it up to the fact you are an unrepentant atheist. If people can't be influenced, why would billions be spent on advertisements! Of course people can be influenced and you're doing a fairly good job proving it.

So, you are suggesting that advertising causes people to do things they would not otherwise do? Such as?

Prime examples: The "enjoyment of what many today would call music! Clearly, every generation has a few bombs, but real rhyme, rhythm, and melody seems to be lacking among the average citizen today. Many seem unable to be able to play an instrument or even really sing other than in monotones and spitting.

My dad in his 20's was so proud of his High Fidelity (HiFi) and would play many classical records (even though he grew up in the Big Band Era). And this was not limited to my dad. Mario Lanza was quite popular in the 1950's. Even the Beatles and Moody Blues and Simon and Garfunkel in later years were acceptable to my father (though not TOO LOUD!)

Tattoos, is another example of being influenced to do what was once considered stupid. What person still wears the same clothes and the same hairstyle they did 10, 20, 30 years ago! One can change his wardrobe and grow a beard and cut his hair, but a tattoo is forever! Removal is both painful and skin damaging. Will a 65 year old really want barbwire running around his neck, or a list of all his girlfriends for his children and grand-kids to see? Jewish survivors of the Holocaust often wear such scars proudly --- but they didn't mutilate themselves.

Where is the influence coming from? The world of entertainment! The actors on the TV and in the movies and now even school teachers and parents are running around like tattooed circus sideshow acts! And don't think for a moment that those children are not being influenced! No respect for one's GOD given body. No thought for tomorrow. It's not my business, but it is my opinion. And clearly people are being influenced.

"Stupid is as stupid does." My grandfather would say that --- and now I understand exactly what he meant... I guess that comes with age. I'm glad I wasn't born yesterday!

 

[LittleNipper]

Spirituality and Religion are two different things but they are closely related and sometimes interchangeable. Religions are the manifestation of Spirituality. Most people who are devoutly spiritual are religious as well... but not always. You can be spiritual without being religious. There are also people who profess to be religious, yet they are not very spiritual. I know you didn't want a "pontificating" reply but it's simply not a yes or no answer.

You're just incapable of simply answering a question witout posturing, aren't you? That said, if I understand the gist your response correctly, what you call "spirituality" is not dependent on religion. So, would you say that "spirituality" is a system of determining one's moral centre?

I'm sorry that you consider it "posturing" to answer questions correctly. Spirituality is not necessarily dependent on religion but I would not say that it's a system of determining one's moral center. Spirituality is human connection with something greater than self. Can this aid one in finding their moral center? Sure. However, I assume Atheists who have no spirituality also have some perception of their own moral center, true?

By that definition, I'm "spiritual". After all, I'm connected to "something greater than myself". It's called a society, and a culture. By that definition everyone is spiritual who isn't a sociopath.

Atheism fosters the development of sociopaths due to not having a moral compass.

That's adorable.

• I believe in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence pervading the Universe.
  • As quoted in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 293.

• We really haven't got any great amount of data on the subject, and without data how can we reach any definite conclusions? All we have — everything — favors the idea of what religionists call the "Hereafter." Science, if it ever learns the facts, probably will find another more definitely descriptive term.
  • As quoted in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.

• It is very beautiful over there!
  • These have sometimes been reported as his last words, but were actually spoken several days before his death, as he awoke from a nap, gazing upwards, as reported by his physician Dr. Hubert S. Howe, in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor(1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.

• We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything.
  • As quoted in Golden Book (April 1931), according to Stevenson's Book of Quotations (Cassell 3rd edition 1938) by Burton Egbert Stevenson.

• There is a great directing head of people and things — a Supreme Being who looks after the destinies of the world.
  I am convinced that the body is made up of entities that are intelligent and are directed by this Higher Power. When one cuts his finger, I believe it is the intelligence of these entities which heals the wound. When one is sick, it is the intelligence of these entities which brings convalescence. You know that there are living cells in the body so tiny that the microscope cannot find them at all. The entities that give life and soul to the human body are finer still and lie infinitely beyond the reach of our finest scientific instruments. When these entities leave the body, the body is like a ship without a rudder — deserted, motionless and dead.
  • As quoted in The Romance and Drama of the Rubber Industry (1936) by Harvey Samuel Firestone

Thomas Alva Edison ---- this doesn't make him a Christian, however, he was no Atheist. He was a very inquisitive individual --- but not stupid! And unlike waht some Liberals wish to believe, some people chance. With GOD all things are possible.

 

[Czernobog]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

The problem with atheists is that they believe just as much as the religious believe.

I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God doesn't exist. Because I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Believing in things you have no idea about isn't really being open minded.

:
I've responded to this so many times, it has become tedious. I swear I'm just going to print this out in a word pad, and copy and paste it, every time some ignorant person posts this:

You presume that atheism is a conclusion: "I conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God," However, rational atheism is. Not. A Conclusion. It is a premise: "Proposed: There is no God." As soon as objective, verifiable, evidence is presented to the contrary, the premise will change.

Theism, on the other hand, is not a premise. It is a conclusion, arrived at with no objective, verifiable evidence, that God exists.

Atheism is a conclusion. If it weren't a conclusion you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be a non-believer.

Definition of ATHEIST

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods :"


Atheist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. Compare agnostic."

Agnostic definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Agnostic

"An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not."

So, you're telling me that an atheist is an agnostic. Er.... why?

Not one of your definitions contradicts what I said.

Guess what? I believe there is no God. I believe this, because I have seen no objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence to the contrary. Present me with that evidence, and I will alter my position. I have yet to be presented with that evidence, so you'll forgive me if I feel fairly confident in my position: There is not God.

 

[Czernobog]

Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period.

Then you are applying an impossible standard that no reasonable fetus could be expected to adhere to.

Not at all true. Between 10 to 35% of fetuses at 23 weeks survive outside the womb. At week 24 that number raises to 40 to 70%, and at 25 weeks, it's a full 50 to 80%. This is why I concede that 25 weeks is a rational cut-off for elective abortions; because at 25 weeks, at least half of all fetuses are independently viable.

It would be no different than saying you don't have Constitutional rights unless you can survive an hour under water. In the fetal stage of development, a womb is the expected environment. Removing the fetus from the womb is removing it from it's expected environment, then demanding it doesn't have rights unless it can survive.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The principle word in fetal viability is fetal. There is no such thing, medically, as "human" viability, or "organism" viability. Viability is a measure that is unique to fetuses. Attempts to try and apply it to other situations in order to demonstrate its "irrationality" fails to recognise the purpose, and limitations of the medical term fetal viability.

 

[Czernobog]

None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.

All of it functions independently from the host. It IS an independent organism, else you wouldn't need to kill it.

That is simply not true. Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you lack a fundamental understanding of how pregnancy works. None of those functions work independent of the host. Separate a non-viable fetus from its host, and all of those functions cease operating. That is because they are all dependent on the host to function.

And it's going to rely on it's "host" for the next 18 years... maybe 26 if Obamacare mandates remain. Children's reliance on parents don't change what they are.

That also is demonstrably not true. Unlike a non-viable fetus, an infant's circulatory system, nervous system, and all other biological function operate with no assistance. You are engaging in a dishonest false analogy between a fetus' necessity for a host to regulate its biological functions, and an infant's need for basic needs to be provided needs.

 

[Czernobog]

You're just incapable of simply answering a question witout posturing, aren't you? That said, if I understand the gist your response correctly, what you call "spirituality" is not dependent on religion. So, would you say that "spirituality" is a system of determining one's moral centre?

I'm sorry that you consider it "posturing" to answer questions correctly. Spirituality is not necessarily dependent on religion but I would not say that it's a system of determining one's moral center. Spirituality is human connection with something greater than self. Can this aid one in finding their moral center? Sure. However, I assume Atheists who have no spirituality also have some perception of their own moral center, true?

By that definition, I'm "spiritual". After all, I'm connected to "something greater than myself". It's called a society, and a culture. By that definition everyone is spiritual who isn't a sociopath.

Atheism fosters the development of sociopaths due to not having a moral compass.

That's adorable.

• I believe in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence pervading the Universe.
  • As quoted in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 293.

• We really haven't got any great amount of data on the subject, and without data how can we reach any definite conclusions? All we have — everything — favors the idea of what religionists call the "Hereafter." Science, if it ever learns the facts, probably will find another more definitely descriptive term.
  • As quoted in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.

• It is very beautiful over there!
  • These have sometimes been reported as his last words, but were actually spoken several days before his death, as he awoke from a nap, gazing upwards, as reported by his physician Dr. Hubert S. Howe, in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor(1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295.

• We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything.
  • As quoted in Golden Book (April 1931), according to Stevenson's Book of Quotations (Cassell 3rd edition 1938) by Burton Egbert Stevenson.

• There is a great directing head of people and things — a Supreme Being who looks after the destinies of the world.
  I am convinced that the body is made up of entities that are intelligent and are directed by this Higher Power. When one cuts his finger, I believe it is the intelligence of these entities which heals the wound. When one is sick, it is the intelligence of these entities which brings convalescence. You know that there are living cells in the body so tiny that the microscope cannot find them at all. The entities that give life and soul to the human body are finer still and lie infinitely beyond the reach of our finest scientific instruments. When these entities leave the body, the body is like a ship without a rudder — deserted, motionless and dead.
  • As quoted in The Romance and Drama of the Rubber Industry (1936) by Harvey Samuel Firestone

Thomas Alva Edison ---- this doesn't make him a Christian, however, he was no Atheist. He was a very inquisitive individual --- but not stupid! And unlike waht some Liberals wish to believe, some people chance. With GOD all things are possible.

Well...that's all fascinating. However, since Edison was not included in my post, I don't really see your point. You made the dishonest assertion implying that atheists are sociopaths. I simply responded demonstrating that a great number of great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, and inventors were atheists.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I believe there is no God

simply stating a belief is a metaphysical phenomena that is from a source not related to a particular celestial body or to any physical attribute but to a source that spans the entire universe embedded as a boundless thought process of each being that is responsible for its conclusion.

the metaphysical axioms are responsible for life on earth and the physiology created by it for a physical existence.

surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

 

[Czernobog]

.

I believe there is no God

simply stating a belief is a metaphysical phenomena that is from a source not related to a particular celestial body or to any physical attribute but to a source that spans the entire universe embedded as a boundless thought process of each being that is responsible for its conclusion.

the metaphysical axioms are responsible for life on earth and the physiology created by it for a physical existence.

surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

 

[sakinago]

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Clearly you understand nothing about the term viability. First, I can't become non-viable, as viability is a measurement that only applies to a fetus. Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period. So your asinine example of choking me is as absurd as it is insulting. Second, there is nothing "subjective" about viability. It is the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, and is measured as a percentage, determined by statistical data. With current technology the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability is 22 weeks, and even that is, at best, 10%. As a fetus at 24 weeks has a 40-50% chance of viability, that would be a rational cutoff for elective abortion.

No, viability is not fetal specific, because it isn’t a real scientific term. Nor is it a clearly defined one. You are wading into waters you do not understand. “Viability” (as you think of it) is completely different case to case, the greatest factor in this is surfactant of the undeveloped lungs. A “viable” premature “fetus” WILL NOT survive with without an incubator, because the Lungs are the last to develop, and therefore do not do the best job at exchanges gases. Some have more surfactant, some have less. Surfactant is just like the engine oil that keeps and engine running smoothly, but if you run a care without oil, your going to throw metal chunks into your engine. Some have lungs that are better developed with less surfactant, Some have less developed lungs with greater surfactant. There is no clear definition of viability, since it’s been continually moved further and further back. It also has nothing to do with whether or not one is living or “dead”. The levels of surfactant are about to be made moot with artificial wombs...are you going to change your definition of viability then?

I’ll ask again. Is it ok to pull the plug on a coma Patient on life support when the prognosis is overwhelmingly good for that patient?

Actually, that would be a question for that individual, or the person they left with their medical surrogacy to answer. I'm sure you are familiar with DNR, and No Heroic Measures orders?

Further, you continuing to claim that viability is not a medical term that has no specific meaning doesn't magically make it so.

It’s not a static term. It is continuously changing. With even more drastic changes on the way.

No a surragote cannot “pull the plug” on someone with a good prognosis. That’s just absurd, if a doctor said in a matter of months, 82% chance of full recovery, and if they keep on surviving their chances will continue to go up and up, gain more and more independence, on go on living a healthy life. And informed consent is necessary for a DNR.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Clearly you understand nothing about the term viability. First, I can't become non-viable, as viability is a measurement that only applies to a fetus. Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period. So your asinine example of choking me is as absurd as it is insulting. Second, there is nothing "subjective" about viability. It is the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, and is measured as a percentage, determined by statistical data. With current technology the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability is 22 weeks, and even that is, at best, 10%. As a fetus at 24 weeks has a 40-50% chance of viability, that would be a rational cutoff for elective abortion.

No, viability is not fetal specific, because it isn’t a real scientific term. Nor is it a clearly defined one. You are wading into waters you do not understand. “Viability” (as you think of it) is completely different case to case, the greatest factor in this is surfactant of the undeveloped lungs. A “viable” premature “fetus” WILL NOT survive with without an incubator, because the Lungs are the last to develop, and therefore do not do the best job at exchanges gases. Some have more surfactant, some have less. Surfactant is just like the engine oil that keeps and engine running smoothly, but if you run a care without oil, your going to throw metal chunks into your engine. Some have lungs that are better developed with less surfactant, Some have less developed lungs with greater surfactant. There is no clear definition of viability, since it’s been continually moved further and further back. It also has nothing to do with whether or not one is living or “dead”. The levels of surfactant are about to be made moot with artificial wombs...are you going to change your definition of viability then?

I’ll ask again. Is it ok to pull the plug on a coma Patient on life support when the prognosis is overwhelmingly good for that patient?

Actually, that would be a question for that individual, or the person they left with their medical surrogacy to answer. I'm sure you are familiar with DNR, and No Heroic Measures orders?

Further, you continuing to claim that viability is not a medical term that has no specific meaning doesn't magically make it so.

It’s not a static term. It is continuously changing. With even more drastic changes on the way.

No a surragote cannot “pull the plug” on someone with a good prognosis. That’s just absurd, if a doctor said in a matter of months, 82% chance of full recovery, and if they keep on surviving their chances will continue to go up and up, gain more and more independence, on go on living a healthy life. And informed consent is necessary for a DNR.

And when fetus has a 82% chance of viability (around week 25), I would agree that elective abortion should not be an option. I'm glad we agree.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I believe there is no God

simply stating a belief is a metaphysical phenomena that is from a source not related to a particular celestial body or to any physical attribute but to a source that spans the entire universe embedded as a boundless thought process of each being that is responsible for its conclusion.

the metaphysical axioms are responsible for life on earth and the physiology created by it for a physical existence.

surly there must be an Almighty in the sense of there being a guidance from one stage to another in the progression of the genome of life reflected by the evolutionary changes that occur over time.

.
your existence both physical, physiological and being is a metaphysical phenomena bound by universal axioms that must be adhered to or you will cease to exist. -

your weak set of commandments is an attempt to categorize the axioms in a way for yourself to understand them without there being an Almighty that is a source for guidance if nothing else, fine by me - the results are the same.


it also happens to be related to the subject matter unlike the two sociopaths that have nothing better to do than argue for the enslavement of women against having their own will and control over their own lives.

 

[sealybobo]

So like we use Santa to teach naughty and nice you need a fairytale to be morale? You don’t know pedophilia is wrong? That’s why we have laws.

You may wish to believe that everybody believes in a god but many don’t. They might not tell you but they are out there. Laws are for us because we don’t believe in heaven hell or god.

And the funny thing is we still know it’s not right to steal lie or bang your wife.

Although I will lust for her in my mind. Nothing will stop a nihilist from doing that

But you're not explaining the basis for your morals. You're telling us what you "don't need" but you've not explained how you are to discern "good" from "bad" in that context. Without some mooring and foundation, the concept of "good" and "bad" is simply self-defined and arbitrary. Hitler thought it "good" to rid the world of the Jew. Mao thought it was "good" to execute all the capitalists. Humans can rationalize all sorts of "good" whenever there is no moral accountability.

You say you "know it's not right" but how do you know? Nature says "survival of the fittest" ...if you can whip someone's ass and take their wife and resources, that's Nature. You establish yourself as the alpha male by eliminating the competition. You're not presenting any reason for humans to divert from nature in favor of morality and ethics.

How do I know it was wrong of hitler? Golden rule?

The Golden Rule is a spiritual concept. Do you know of ANY creature in nature that practices the Golden Rule? It's not a "naturalist" principle. In nature, there is no "Golden Rule" ...only the strongest survive. You do unto others before they can do unto you!

It is our human spirituality which gives us the rationalization of "the greater good" and similar anecdotes. That's why I said, this whole line of reasoning about "rational positions" is actually a testament to human spiritualism and our comprehension of a power greater than self which holds us morally accountable.

Any two animals that have a simbiotic relationship?

The golden rule isn’t spiritual.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

It’s not a static term. It is continuously changing. With even more drastic changes on the way.

No a surragote cannot “pull the plug” on someone with a good prognosis. That’s just absurd, if a doctor said in a matter of months, 82% chance of full recovery, and if they keep on surviving their chances will continue to go up and up, gain more and more independence, on go on living a healthy life. And informed consent is necessary for a DNR.

With even more drastic changes on the way ...


what's taking you so long, Roe v Wade was issued in 1971 ... your inquisition has only become dramatic for its failure to persecute women for having their own lives to live without your involvement. is it your latest holy war what keeps you relevant in your own mind.

 

[Boss]

Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period.

Then you are applying an impossible standard that no reasonable fetus could be expected to adhere to.

Not at all true. Between 10 to 35% of fetuses at 23 weeks survive outside the womb. At week 24 that number raises to 40 to 70%, and at 25 weeks, it's a full 50 to 80%. This is why I concede that 25 weeks is a rational cut-off for elective abortions; because at 25 weeks, at least half of all fetuses are independently viable.

It would be no different than saying you don't have Constitutional rights unless you can survive an hour under water. In the fetal stage of development, a womb is the expected environment. Removing the fetus from the womb is removing it from it's expected environment, then demanding it doesn't have rights unless it can survive.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The principle word in fetal viability is fetal. There is no such thing, medically, as "human" viability, or "organism" viability. Viability is a measure that is unique to fetuses. Attempts to try and apply it to other situations in order to demonstrate its "irrationality" fails to recognise the purpose, and limitations of the medical term fetal viability.

"Fetal" is simply a stage of development. It's no different than adolescent or geriatric. Your god given rights shouldn't depend on the chances of survival outside reasonably expected environment for normal survival.

 

[Boss]

None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.

All of it functions independently from the host. It IS an independent organism, else you wouldn't need to kill it.

That is simply not true. Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you lack a fundamental understanding of how pregnancy works. None of those functions work independent of the host. Separate a non-viable fetus from its host, and all of those functions cease operating. That is because they are all dependent on the host to function.

And it's going to rely on it's "host" for the next 18 years... maybe 26 if Obamacare mandates remain. Children's reliance on parents don't change what they are.

That also is demonstrably not true. Unlike a non-viable fetus, an infant's circulatory system, nervous system, and all other biological function operate with no assistance. You are engaging in a dishonest false analogy between a fetus' necessity for a host to regulate its biological functions, and an infant's need for basic needs to be provided needs.

Well, I am sorry but you're just ******* wrong. All the organism's functions are independent of the host. At that stage of development, the fetus depends on the host because of environment. The newborn infant will also depend on the host, that doesn't make it part of the host and not it's own independent self.

Did you fail biology or something?