Free Republic

I'm glad you are amused at my ignorance, but frankly, the real comedy is to be laughed at by a flat-earther.

No, what’s really funny is watching a doofus with an inferiority complex try to decide “when” his steak is done. “Gee, I don’t know. Maybe another couple of nanosec -- no, maybe more time -- I just can’t be sure it’s truly ready. (Then, after 20 minutes of hand-wringing: ) Oops, now it’s ruined.”

I am very impressed that you are so devoted to theory that you will not even attempt to answer fundamental questions. Very impressed indeed. I’m less impressed by your unwillingness to acknowledge that there are points along a continuum at which certain conditions can definitively be said to be true. I accept and agree with (and frankly, expected) your explanation of water turning to ice. But surely you would agree that, at some point, the water can be tested to determine whether it possesses the qualities of a solid. At some point, there is no question that a jet aircraft is traveling faster than the sound waves around it. Likewise, at some point, there is no question that the “organism” in a woman’s womb is a living entity with its own human genetic code.

So, seeing as you and I are not communicating well, how about if I put it this way: “If the organism has its own human genetic code and exhibits the characteristics of a living organism, ‘it’ is a living human and thus should have human rights.” Will that placate you? (And if not, will you agree your own rights are in jeopardy, given the apparent theoretical uncertainty of your own status as a human?) If you can accept that simple and non-arbitrary test, then your concerns about continua should evaporate. Other questions may arise, such as how you test for the stated condition, but those questions are more practical than theoretical, and not, as you may claim, “arbitrary”; and as science marches on, they become less daunting. Which is the original thrust of this thread.

PS: I thoroughly enjoyed the comment about “extraterrestrials.” The nerd-o-meter overheated when I read that one.

Threshholds are points that *people* place along continua.

So let me get this straight. You believe that water freezes at a certain point on the “temperature continuum” because *people* set the threshold for freezing. You also think a jet aircraft accelerates along the “speed continuum” and crosses the sound barrier because *people* have determined the speed of sound. I know a lot of USAF pilots who would be interested in manipulating that threshold; may I give them your e-mail address?

I think you give our species (or perhaps yourself) too much credit. If you think nature and physics don’t impose thresholds of their own, then you will never understand my position on when rights should attach. I just knew I was wasting my breath by restating my position for you.

I asked you last time for your counter-proposal, and in response you gave me just what I predicted: another sermon on continua. You have assumed the intellectual fetal position and denied -- incredibly -- there is any such thing as a natural threshold. And you continue to avoid the issue at hand. Like a Trekkie run amok, you seem more interested in pontificating about the space-time continuum than with acknowledging that a natural point exists at which an unborn entity may successfully be identified as a human life. You criticize the notion of conception as the invention of a dolt, but you have repeatedly failed to offer a more logical or more ethically defensible alternative. Not terribly courageous; rather weenie-like.

In conclusion, here’s your original question: When do rights attach? Here’s my answer again: When the life form can be identified as a human life (not, as you imply, at a particular “age”). Your answer is yet to be announced. I have to say I’ve been amused by your reluctance to offer one.

How do you get through high school thinking that processes operate by skips and jumps rather than continua? What in your life experiences would cause you to even think such a magical thing? Have you observed time skipping?

Oh, that hurts. But come to think of it, it is truly a wonder I got through high school, seeing how I had to spend so much time saving smug, smart-mouthed physics geeks from getting their butts kicked by my less tolerant fellow athletes. But that's neither here nor there.

If you'd bother to read my posts, my position on this issue would "magically" appear to you. I don't think I've ever denied that continua exist in physics, in biology, or anywhere else. But hey, get this. All along these continua are things called "thresholds." And once you've crossed the relevant threshold, it doesn't matter where on the continuum you are. So, forgive me if I don't see why you insist on getting wrapped around the axle on how "mature" or "developed" a human life is. The relevant question is whether the life is human. End of story.

I'll say it once again (though I just know I'll live to regret it). Once an "organism" is a "human life form" -- i.e., "it" has crossed the threshold into being "human" -- "it" should be given rights accordingly. It does not matter how far "it" is along the path to maturity. It's kinda like a smug, smart-mouthed physics geek who walks through the door into the locker room. Once he crosses that threshold, he is in danger of getting hung up by his underwear. It doesn't really matter how far into the locker room he is; that's purely academic. The relevant inquiry is whether he's walked through that door -- and into the zone of "wedgie danger."

Now, if you have a better answer, fine. I'm all atwitter to hear it. But so far all you've said is that there is a continuum that governs the process of life. Eureka. I'm truly impressed. You want me to accuse you of thinking rationally? First, put down the Rubik's Cube. Then focus your answer, quit dwelling on the irrelevant, and offer a counter proposal instead of viewing everyone else as fools who can't make it through high school. Or shall I await my next lesson on the wonders of continua?

Strictly speaking, all biological phenomena are on a continuum. Our need for discrete terminology doesn't trump the laws of physics. So, of course you are wrong.

Well, strictly speaking, it's impossible to cross an infinite number of points in a finite period of time, so motion is thus impossible.

Come on. Are you telling me there's no way to tell the difference between (1) a sperm and an egg; and (2) a human life with human DNA? If so, then of course you are clueless.

Not to throw labels around indiscriminately, but you are thinking like a liberal. You seem inclined to apply complex answers to simple questions.

Any "point" in a continuum of change is arbitrary. ... Since I brought it up, what criteria do determine rights? 10 fingers and 10 toes?

From the standpoint of your question as posed, there's no "continuum" involved. Once "it" is a living human being -- i.e., at conception, which is not arbitrary at all -- then "it" is a person and should have rights at that time.

But there are million of others, neither reactionary nor religious, who have now concluded - or are in the process of concluding - that at some point, before birth, fetuses become babies, deserving of protection.

The sad part is, many of these same people are willing to let the Supreme Court dictate when that "point" occurs. As an attorney, I can tell you that no one is less qualified to make such judgments than a bunch of lawyers and judges.

This meant that at every turn the campaign chose caution over boldness so as not to offend the undecideds who, as a group, long to be soothed and reassured rather than challenged and inspired.

Please, PLEASE let this be the Dems' mantra two years from now ... "To the left, boys and girls!"

I figured it was the Mississippi Blues.

They will break for Thanksgiving, feast on turkey and wine, get drowsy, ask "what's the point," and never return.

Moby. Didn't Eminem beat him up or something? Anyway, if Moby wanted to secede, here's a hint of what the country might look like:

She was at least reasonably attractive in that book.

No offense, Izzy, but either that book had one hell of a good photographer or you have mighty low standards!

Moooo-ly be a skanky ho since day one!!

:-)

Classic. A timeless liberal loser play. Cry, cry, cry DUmmies, you deserve to be miserable after all the crap you pulled in this election. Viva Bush.

"I hope that your second term will provide an opportunity to reinforce the Franco-American friendship," the French leader said, according to his office.

Translation: Please don't beat me up.

European wish lists for White House action included catching terror chief Osama bin Laden, reigning in Iran’s suspected nuclear programme, tackling environmental problems and bringing peace to Iraq, to name but a few.

Wait just a cotton-pickin'. They want to accuse us of "turning a deaf ear to the world's concerns," and at the same time ask us to keep doing what we're already doing? Pretty much without their help? Stupid Euros, have a nice cup of STFU!

Yeah, ha,ha, they [Dixie Chicks] threw their career away over a loser.

Yes, they sure did. BTW, I checked their website. Not a frikking word. Trollops.

Dixie Fat Chicks.

That is the most incoherent rant I've seen yet. Awesome!

Amen. It's good to see that my contribution to the Swifties paid out, while George Soros's investment in moveon.org went down the crapper. Some investment guru he is.

How does one get from U of T (Austin?) to the military? Is that legal?

I found a loophole! LOL! (Are you an Aggie, by any chance?)

My advice to "Eliana Deutsch-bag": It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.

I had three college degrees before I joined the military, all from the University of Texas: BBA '87, JD '91, MBA '92. I took a huge cut in pay, not because it was my "only option", but because I wanted to serve my country. Apparently "Eliana Deutsch-bag" doesn't have the foggiest notion of what that means. She's in it for the money and is happy to live off of other people's efforts.