When Does Life Begin?

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

. . . I must first ask if you ate your vegetables today, then we can discuss the relative merits of your religion versus reincarnation.

I must confess I ate some 4 bean salad and a piece of chicken. None of your relatives, I hope.

OH, I also put some coffee into boiling water.

Mea culpa!

I lack the inclination to believe in supernatural beans, however there is a Bean Bible

I always thought of you more as a lentil, which is technically a pulse, not a bean.

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

. . . I must first ask if you ate your vegetables today, then we can discuss the relative merits of your religion versus reincarnation.

I must confess I ate some 4 bean salad and a piece of chicken. None of your relatives, I hope.

OH, I also put some coffee into boiling water.

Mea culpa!

I lack the inclination to believe in supernatural beans, however there is a Bean Bible

I always thought of you more as a lentil, which is technically a pulse, not a bean.

If you wish to consider me a non-bean that is your prerogative, but since you Confess to eating 4 bean salad, you make the first step towards True Salivation.

Body of Bean blood of Bean, all hail the Holy Bean!

real life wrote:

You stated that there could be another option.

I was wondering if you could elaborate on that.

But apparently you cannot.

Cannot or choose not to.

I'm trying to point out to you that life is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.

I think that you try to make things simple so that it will be easier for you to debate from the position you have chosen. I also think that is a mistake on your part.

He's a closet eggnostic.

Eggs... Beans... this thread has should be moved to a food forum!

Anyways, RL is invoking the VERY old arguement of his about whether all beliefs are valid. "Valid" is a really interesting choice of words IMO. Are all beliefs valid? Certainly not, but every belief has to be tested before being invalidated. History shows that the idea of abortion being criminal is invalid, not the contrary. I won't argue the morality of abortion, because the reasons/circumstances people have abortions are always unique.

I won't deny that some circumstances would offend me, but that kind of reaction is not unique to the abortion issue.

As a side note: If in our male dominated world, we were able to successfully transplant pregnancies, I wonder how this issue would play out? I'd love to watch people CHOOSE not to take an embryo, and at the same time condemn a woman for CHOOSING to abort and embryo.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Eggs... Beans... this thread has should be moved to a food forum!

Anyways, RL is invoking the VERY old arguement of his about whether all beliefs are valid. "Valid" is a really interesting choice of words IMO. Are all beliefs valid? Certainly not, but every belief has to be tested before being invalidated. History shows that the idea of abortion being criminal is invalid, not the contrary. I won't argue the morality of abortion, because the reasons/circumstances people have abortions are always unique.

I won't deny that some circumstances would offend me, but that kind of reaction is not unique to the abortion issue.

As a side note: If in our male dominated world, we were able to successfully transplant pregnancies, I wonder how this issue would play out? I'd love to watch people CHOOSE not to take an embryo, and at the same time condemn a woman for CHOOSING to abort and embryo.

T
K
O

More likely when and not if we can transplant pregnancies, and keeping the terms simplistic and to the point:

The (so-called) "moral question" might arise when the transplant-er cannot / will not bring the pregnancy to terms, and the transplant-ee refuses the (so-called) "moral obligation".

Bear in mind however that future reproductive technologies will likely include the fully artificial womb and/or biological surrogacy and/or cybernetic hybridized equivalent.

The (so-called) "moral question" might arise when the transplant-er cannot / will not bring the pregnancy to terms, and the transplant-ee is a great ape.

Those on the right who are "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or atheism and the decay of religion.

The whole (so-called) "moral question" can perhaps best be put into perspective by considering:

A simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores are trying to be applied to modern medical science.

By default that makes many religious people closet Neo-Luddites hence often hypocrites in their stance towards the application of modern science i.e. technology.

Quote:

Those on the right who are "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or atheism and the decay of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism

The whole (so-called) "moral question" can perhaps best be put into perspective by considering:

A simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores are trying to be applied to modern medical science.

By default that makes many religious people closet Neo-Luddites hence often hypocrites in their stance towards the application of modern science i.e. technology.

Quote:

Those on the right who are "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or atheism and the decay of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism