When Does Life Begin?

I get the impression you may harbor a fair degree of general skepticism, this which would fly in the face of your Christian religiosity.

Probably around 99.9% - would be my guess.

Chumly wrote:

I get the impression you may harbor a fair degree of general skepticism, this which would fly in the face of your Christian religiosity.

Actually, Christians are told to test. (1 John 4:1) However, many are more inclined to follow their emotions.

Scepticism (from the Greek, skeptesthai, 'to examine') is the philosophical view that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, or to know the world as it 'really' is. The word can also mean a general reluctance to accept anything on face value without sufficient proof (as in "He heard that Jim had run the 100m in under ten seconds but he remained sceptical").

However, Scepticism (with a capital 'S') began in the 5th century BC in Greece where certain philosophers came to express doubts about how certain we could be about our knowledge. Protagoras of Abdera (480-411 BC), for instance, is reported to have said that "man is the measure of all things" (i.e. that we make the world in our own image) and Gorgias (485-380 BC) that "nothing exists; if anything does exist, it cannot be known; if anything exists and can be known, it cannot be communicated". Many such thinkers arose from the group known as the Sophists, men who would hire their skills in debate and argument out to anyone for the right fee. From this point of view, this form of scepticism is based on the fact that with enough skill, any argument can sound convincing.

neo, The 2d and 3d opinions depends on who you ask. In the final analysis, you must decide for yourself what to believe. There's only "confusion" out there.

The biggest handicap for most people is that the environment in which they are born and grow up in; it has the greatest influence on our life. There aren't too many independent thinkers "out there."

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I get the impression you may harbor a fair degree of general skepticism, this which would fly in the face of your Christian religiosity.

Actually, Christians are told to test. (1 John 4:1) However, many are more inclined to follow their emotions.

Am I to exhume you see no distinction between a religious test and general skepticism? Can you dig this?

Quote:

Scepticism (from the Greek, skeptesthai, 'to examine') is the philosophical view that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, or to know the world as it 'really' is. The word can also mean a general reluctance to accept anything on face value without sufficient proof (as in "He heard that Jim had run the 100m in under ten seconds but he remained sceptical").

However, Scepticism (with a capital 'S') began in the 5th century BC in Greece where certain philosophers came to express doubts about how certain we could be about our knowledge. Protagoras of Abdera (480-411 BC), for instance, is reported to have said that "man is the measure of all things" (i.e. that we make the world in our own image) and Gorgias (485-380 BC) that "nothing exists; if anything does exist, it cannot be known; if anything exists and can be known, it cannot be communicated". Many such thinkers arose from the group known as the Sophists, men who would hire their skills in debate and argument out to anyone for the right fee. From this point of view, this form of scepticism is based on the fact that with enough skill, any argument can sound convincing.

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/scepticism8.htm

I for one would not discount emotional inclination as a potentially merited rationalization depending on what is meant by path:

- Path to enlightenment
- Path to gainful employment
- Path to marital consummation
- Path to consummate humor
- Rollerblade path

What say you?

Your choice of what to cook for dinner or where to take your spouse on your anniversary represents a somewhat different aspect of your life than how you may choose to evaluate your conscience, for example.

real life wrote:

Hokie,

The unborn's blood is often of a different blood type than the mother's, and it is flowing thru the veins before the end of the first month.

since you obviously read my post, why didn't you repond to the <46 chromosomes?

...real life ...made the claim that cellular material with 46 chromosomes is a de facto human being

Minor digressions from the topic at hand may be expected in discussions between members of distinction

Chumly wrote:

...real life ...made the claim that cellular material with 46 chromosomes is a de facto human being

Incorrect, as usual Chumly.

I simply pointed out that the sperm and egg have only half of the normal 46 chromosomes, and thus cannot qualify as a living human being.

You routinely bring up the sperm and the egg, and try to imply that if an embryo is a human life , then one must also believe a sperm or egg is also.

No matter how many times it has been pointed out to you that this in incorrect, it seems that this smoke and mirrors trick is about the only one you know.

Actually, I wasn't hoping for anything. Really, I'm indifferent. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. I simply wanted to point out that there are many children born with fewer than 46 chromosomes.

Actually, I wasn't hoping for anything. Really, I'm indifferent. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. I simply wanted to point out that there are many children born with fewer than 46 chromosomes.