3RU7AL

One cannot prove a negative. If one claims that nothing could possibly begin to exist without a cause one us committing a black swan fallacy. If one further claims that one special thing exists that did not begin then one is also committing a case of special pleading.

Abortion will not have been eradicated. How will it have been eradicated?

Will it be women, or only couples asking for an artificial womb? What if they change their minds mid gestation?

If a crazed person enters the gestation room and destroys several embryos, what crime will he be charged with?

We will never be free of the scourge of abortion as long as there are people thinking a baby is just a mass of cells.

...what are you contending is not an effect, not requiring a 'cause', or otherwise consistant with uncaused cause.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

This specifically is a black swan fallacy. Indeed in light of quantum fluctuation we cannot even say that we have not ever observed something which appears to be causeless. Also since quantum physics shows the possibility of nonlinear causation a cause need not precede an effect at all. The cause of the universe may not have yet occurred.

Ok, thank you, I think I understand what you are saying.

Please help secularmerlin catch up with you.

You would first have to educate yourself on the subject. I bet you don't even know how many physical constants there are or what they do. One of them is preventing the atoms in your body for flying apart and becoming a bunch of subatomic particles.

I would not call The Ultimate Reality a noumenon because that implies it is contingent on thought.

Thought does not precede The Ultimate Reality, The Ultimate Reality precedes thought. The Uktimate Reality is not a contingent existence.

Having read more and a better understanding,on it's face, this is in fact the perfect solution to the abortion issue.  Setting aside the unintended and unforeseen consequences, this meets all the requirements of those who wish to have a stake in the issue.

1.  the woman is no longer pregnant and has no child to worry about

2.  nothing is killed (insert your own object noun)

there are many tangents and rabbit holes we can explore, but those would all need their own thread.

So is a 1 month old embryo growing in an artificial womb a human person?

that does seem to solve all the problems......interesting.  Though the other problems that would be caused and potential unintended consequences would be a different can of worms, guess I'll have to go re-read that thread :)

(out of curiosity, is that something you really promote, if it was a reality, or just for arguments sake?)

I can claim no knowledge of noumenon. I cannot be certain that ducks are even a part of it. In just the same way I have no way to know if anything eternal is part of the noumenon or even if time is a part of it. It's all well and good to say there must be a noumenon it is another thing entirely to say that it contains ultra mega mecha duck.

So the difference is that I have a drect observational experience of one and no reason to believe that the other exists (though I cannot rule out the possibility and would accept it if evidence could be procured)?

What an excellent point! 

If history is any indication, he will dodge or pretend to be obtuse.

Photon is its own dual

Ok so given your statements above, then you would agree if the pregnancy is far enough along that the child should be birthed alive and then adopted out or whatever.  Because a baby of that size has to be delivered vaginally or via c-section whether it's killed or not.  Even still born babies have to be delivered by either of those 2 methods.

To that end delivering the baby alive, via induction meets your requirements of "deportation" and there is no need to kill it, since that is not a primary motive.

What is the difference between reality and the ultimate reality?

point is, the embryo must be part of the woman/woman's body for the woman to have personal sovereignty over it right?  If it's not part of her body, then it's something independent separate entity or unique individual (single; separate)

we've agreed earlier that in an abortion something is killed, so is what's being killed part of the woman or something foreign?

Animals often abandon and or eat some or all of their young under a variety of circumstances.

Not every single human is capable of and or inclined towards reproduction.

by that definition the object in question must be part of the woman's body and can not be it's own separate thing.  "Personal" refers to self, like my, me, mine.

Lol. The egg produced by the woman's own body is called an invader. So only the sperm is mentioned infertilazation. Talk about selectively ignoring something.

Only discuss/respond to what you can defend. Ignore the stupid things you say. Brilliant.

what happens after birth is irrelevant to the conversation, all that is relevant is 2 people/animals had sex and the female is pregnant.

PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life.

is that definition acceptable or would you like to provide a different one?

calling the fertilized egg an invader.

there are plenty of things selectively ignored that didn't go unnoticed ;)

I'm talking about pure biology, at this point morality is irrelevant.

(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].

except that the comparison is grossly inaccurate, abortion in the context of what we are speaking is for convenience, choice, whatever the non medical reason is,  removing a tumor is totally unrelated.

if you'd like to pick a position of whether it is or is not part of the woman's body we might be able to continue, but bouncing back and forth between the 2 isn't anything I'm interested in doing.

so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce? 

You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.

never said it was right, wrong or undesirable did I?

Many things are considered unnatural w/o any moral judgement.

now your insistence that it is a foreign body/invader means it's not part of the woman's body, and because it is foreign and not part of her body, she should be able to kill it, or are you claiming that it's both her body and foreign at the same time, which seems rather impossible.

I don't see why a dualistic substance can't be detected in a fictional universe. But it is clearly a different kind of energy that exists in reality.

that's all well and fine, but again, nature and evolution have sought to protect it as similar things like normal flora. 

The context of foreign invader I don't believe is correct in your usage.  Foreign invader is generally a pejorative.  If you'd like to call it a foreign body that may be more appropriate. 

Regardless, a voluntary abortion is an unnatural thing going against the primary purpose of humans and evolution, which is to reproduce.  Or do you disagree that it's natural for humans to reproduce as it is their primary purpose?

The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.

the other stuff I'm not discussing so trying to keep this focused.  Since the body doesn't reject it as a foreign body and in fact evolution has designed the body to actually keep and protect it, I'm not convinced of your claim.  Is this just your opinion or is there some proof to your claim?  Nature and evolution doesn't see it as a foreign body, normally.

Indeed physical continuity is the key to why I do not wish to be transported. The pattern (often referred to in episodes centering around transporter technology as a plot device) is only the recipe and when someone is transported they are not the same cake.

Have you seen the 2006 movie "The Prestige"?

It covers this territory quite well, I think you'd enjoy it.

The only question that remains: Where did the neural energy come from?!

(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.

is it though?  The egg is made by her, part of her, the "foreign invader" would be the sperm.  The body naturally attacks/rejects or in other ways attempts to rid itself of "foreign invaders" via the immune system.  Granted the immune system doesn't always work in some individuals as it should, but in general it does.  Consider organ transplants for example.

You just added in "potentially". Your concession is noted.

If it is noticed. If it is reported. If it is suspicious. Sure.

I did not say preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about. Lying will not help you.

Concession noted. Abortion is immoral.

What business of mine  are marathon runners and heavy drinkers

Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.

If they are undetected and unnoticed, no one is going to know Einstein.  

By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes...

Stop being stupid. We don't do that for adult people now, why would we do that for the unborn when we don't know if the miscarriage was anyone's fault? And what would you learn from the zygote? Expecting to find knife marks? We don't assume foul play unless something is suspicious.

Truth joined to a lie are still lies. An embryo is an  individual human person . That is a scientific fact. The law does not change reality.

About uploading your consciousness in digital form? Only that this would not in my estimation be me.

Indeed physical continuity is the key to why I do not wish to be transported. The pattern (often referred to in episodes centering around transporter technology as a plot device) is only the recipe and when someone is transported they are not the same cake.

One's a soulless automaton.

And I am talking about The Ultimmate Reality, not reality.

Yeah, it is beyond our understanding.

There is no evidence of anything before there earliest event we can detect (or even at the biggining of this event) the event in question is the big bang. Any claim about what existed or happened before the big bang is therefore necessarily an argument from ignorance if indeed before is not a nonsensical idea regarding the big bang.

That was a statement of fact used to show the stupidity of basing personhood on the baby's dependency on the mother.

You took it and used it as if it was an endorsement.

You did so because you've lost the argument and are now resorting to lies.

It's a quote of me from a besting I gave you. Keep lying, and I will keep that hot spotlight on you.

So when you quote someone, credit them. It's supposed to be difficult to tell you're a liar.

Sure I do. But as it doesn't matter, I don't care. Either way, you've lost, and either way, you're an idiot.

Sorry, but this contradicts the cannon of Star Trek. It wasn't merely enough to recover Picard's physical pattern from the transporter records, but his specific life energy (used in a different context than physical energy) had to also be located into the transporter relays in order to be combined. It isn't simply enough to provide the transporter with energy and create physical bodies.

Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you.

But it is selfish and stupid to spread your legs, and then kill the baby that develops.

having children is not a punishment.

Nor should it be a death sentence for the child.

No one can help everyone.

I help who I can, and who I think deserve help will be decided by me...

Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.

Then there is no problem with them.

How can they be investigated if the go by unnoticed or unreported?

I did not want to cut the cord, that is just your stupidity misleading you. You claim a baby is not a person as long as it is dependent on the mother for survival. So then your definition of personhood depends on how early technology can make baby survive outside the mother.

The frequency doesn't matter. If as you claim the baby and the mother are one person because they are physically connected, then so are conjoined twins.

PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?

I did. Yet you keep trying to do so.

There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor".

The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".

So it was human? Concession noted. And your chimera came about from a fertilized egg, or what is commonly called a baby. You should be ashamed to lie like this.

Embryos are not citizens.  True Fact.

I beg to differ. Every person conceived here or having citizens as parents is a citizen. Plus who I chose to save is my business, not yours.

Once we deport some foreign criminal back to his country, what happens inside there is not our business.

Why would a miscarriage be automatically a crime?

Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.

32,000 a year is few?

Relative to all births, yes. Making laws on exceptions is silly. You talk as if most births are due to rape. The aren't.

You think the floozy who voluntarily spread her legs should escape the responsibility of birth. You want the scuzzy drug addict to escape the responsibility of addiction. And you want others to pay for it.

I'm saying it is not possible to help all of them.

I merely suggested that current law is not prepared to address every miscarriage.

Why not?

Is it sensible to base personhood on technology?

Arguments are not paintings, they are knives. Tools.

Because you said the baby is not human, AND, it is part of the mother.

The only example you gave was of a baby.

I cannot save everyone. So I take care of my citizens first.

What a people do with their country (and what they discuss with their politicians) is a matter of privacy

Star Trek gets around the existential nightmare by accepting Dualism as true. That is, there is more to people than their physical make-up. In The Lonely Among Us Picard is beamed into space. His physical pattern is lost, but his "energy" pattern is retained. They are able to put the two back together by essentially restoring his physical body from a back-up of transporter logs.

Instead of the revelation here being that you don't understand my faith, you simply take the association as being ridiculous.

Orthodox Christianity understands God as being The Ultimate Reality. That is what we acknowledge as being The One True God.

And it certainly isn't just Orthodox Christians, but that is certainly how we understand God.

But understanding the faith has never gotten in the way of our persecuters before. The first step is usually making us into something deserving of mockery, not worthy of serious consideration.