I debate a college Democrat.

[Wiglaf]

Someone doesn't understand the concept of a value debate.

Besides, it does affect me and all Americans. The US government does not want to turn one of its most fundamental institutions into a sodomized joke of itself, lest other institutions follow. That is legitimate, so any challenge to it certainly ought to be rejected.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


The occassional marriage, sure. If one parent can't have kids, then obviously that is a relatively rare exception to the procreation rule.

To use that as a justification to let homosexuals invade the practice and further degrade the institution to MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE seriously de-value propagation is absurd.

Go back to the drawing board, your basic outlook on the issue doesn't make any sense. You can't start flipping on the love/procreation thing then throw in an independent value of being barren whenever it fits your agenda. Figure out what it is you REALLY believe and come up with an HONEST theory.

Is it "gay marriage" you oppose, or is it "sodomy"?

It's called multi-tasking. You can be both against gay marriage AND do something else too, you know.

I'm not so concerned about the time really so much as they money. If ONE dollar is spent on this issue which could have been spent on giving medicine to sick children in Africa I'd say it's a huge waste. Have a national debate, but don't waste money on it.

Also, I feel that you dodged just about every difficult issue I put before you.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Huangdi, the lesson is: next time you think you've won, double check on Poly.

Eh, I thought I would post a funny conversation I had and this ensues.

But fine, feel free to take up to challenge I gave him. Show me evidence that Bush's support of the FMA increased support of it.

[Wiglaf]

Is it "gay marriage" you oppose, or is it "sodomy"?

I oppose any institution inherently contrary to the procreation and love currently represented by marriage.

Barren marriages are a far cry from gay ones. Barren ones are fine for society because they are obviously no fault of a degenerating society. Gay ones are sodomizing and fruitless by nature.

I'm not so concerned about the time really so much as they money. If ONE dollar is spent on this issue which could have been spent on giving medicine to sick children in Africa I'd say it's a huge waste. Have a national debate, but don't waste money on it.

Whatever, fine. We can take care of gay marriage without spending a penny, unless you count some overtime here and there

Also, I feel that you dodged just about every difficult issue I put before you.

Like what? Funding for national debates on the issue?

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


I oppose any institution inherently contrary to the procreation and love currently represented by marriage.

Barren marriages are a far cry from gay ones. Barren ones are fine for society because they are obviously no fault of a degenerating society. Gay ones are sodomizing and fruitless by nature.

Ok, so IF an institution is contrary to procreation AND love you will oppose it.
BUT, you do NOT oppose barren marriages, which is CONTRARY to procreation but NOT love.
Let's resolve your fallacy, and just change your first AND to an OR (so, procreation OR love).
Gay marriages are sodomizing AND fruitless.

Question: Is a gay marriage contrary to procreation OR love? Well, "sodomizing" is contrary to procreation but NOT love and "fruitless" is contrary to procreation, but NOT love.

What does this teach us? That emotions (in this case hatred) decide your position on the issue more than logic. Your "definitions" and "reasons" are all just a giant pretense to justify a gut feeling.

Here's your difficult situation:

You're taking two distinct stances here. Then you having something ELSE which is weird, promoting "some sort of family structure". Well, by all means then we shouldn't we not be discouraging gay marriage but rather encouraging gay marriage coupled with adoption. Even if by your raw instinct you hate gay marriage, isn't taking an impoverished baby from the third world and giving him to LOVING gay parents in the United States better than leaving him to rot in unsanitary conditions?!

[Ben Kenobi]

You can believe all you want but until you can do the impossible and reconcile faith with reason (and not diminish faith in the process), you're not going to able to successfully communicate your view to those who aren't bowled over by excess verbosity. And I'd know about that .

I'm not trying to convince you here that monogamy is better. I'm giving my own reasons why I don't agree with Asher's position.

It's a side issue, to the main point.

I do actually broadly agree with your reasoning on the issue of abortion, that of potential consciousness, and that the parasite argument does not hold thanks to my responsibility definitions... however I have an existential argument that holds that the woman can choose to abort before the baby is capable of communicating (my particular definition of "being",

How does a woman know she is pregnant? Her body changes in response to the child inside of her womb, and these changes can be regarded as a form of interaction between the child and the environment of the child.

So your definiton really doesn't bar the unborn child from participation.

Secondly, what about hermits? Hermits have the ability, but they decline to communicate with others, yet they still remain persons. Clearly who we are, is not limited to our ability to communicate.

It's like saying that I am going to kill someone unless they tell me to stop.

You could say then that I am pro-contraceptive abortion, up until circa four months.

You know your words.

contraceptive = To prevent conception. An abortion cannot be a form of contraception. It can be a form of birth control.

However, we're all men here, how can we possibly hope to solve this problem with nothing but reason from a male perspective.

Why should arguments have gender? There are women who make the same points I do, in fact, probably more women then men?

Even if only men made the point, why should their gender render their arguments invalid?

[Ben Kenobi]

Just like a fetus that isn't in the womb.

In both cases you need favorable conditions and then life will develop. With the sperm and egg, they need to come together, with the fetus, it needs to be in the womb.

No, the two are very different.

First of all, it is not a requirement for zygotes to form in the womb. We do have artifical insemination, and in-vitro fertilisation, that rely upon the capacity to form zygotes outside of the womb.

So clearly, your analogy doesn't hold.

A better analogy, is that the womb provides shelter for the unborn child, much in the way, that houses do for us. For any life to grow and develop, requires the basics of food and shelter. For the unborn child, the food comes through the umbilical cord. For the unborn child, the shelter comes from the womb.

That wasn't your original bar anyhow. You originally said you only needed the potential for sentience.

I did not. I deliberately avoided the use of the term 'potential'.

Capacity does not imply 'potential' any more than it implies that the bucket is full. The bucket may be empty, but it is still a bucket.

And an egg and sperm together have that potential.

And what do you call, and egg and sperm together? This is a zygote.

So your view is identical to mine. Sperm and egg cease to be as individual entities at conception.

Or you could say an egg by itself has that potential in favorable conditions (with a sperm and in the womb). The potential is *clearly* there.

No, the sperm is not a 'favourable condition'.

Consider this. Look at the biology of conception. In terms of the DNA, both the sperm and egg contribute. A favourable condition for life, might be the shelter, or the food, but these conditions do not alter the nature of the life that we speak of.

The sperm does. The contribution of the sperm, changes the nature of the egg, in such a way, that the resultant entity is no longer sperm or egg, but the zygote.

You are going to have a tough time removing the necessity of favorable conditions or limiting them in a reasonable way that that won't result and the need to protect the egg.

The egg, provides half of what is needed. It cannot provide all.

[Ben Kenobi]

In isolation, a fetus does nothing.

Go ahead and take it out of the womb ASAP. Test it out for yourself.

Why do folks like embryonic stem cell research?

Their whole industry is based on the ability of the embryo to grow and develop outside of the womb.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Catholic Church has the stance that the soul enters the 'body' at conception. Easier arguements then once you accept that (not that I do).

It is true, but that is not the argument I am making here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

You are right, but not in the way that you may anticipate.

Rather than my religion drawing me into prolife principles, it works the other way around.

Prolife ideas drew me into religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben has trouble admitting that faith is not reason.

I suggest you read what I have said on this issue.

I agree that faith ought to appeal to reason, but reason cannot wholly encompass faith.

Reason has fundamental limitations, that become very obvious the more you read people like Kant, who raise reason as their primary commitment. How is it that reason, can be used as a tool to shun others?

He seems to feel there is a fundamental problem with not having a wholly rational arguement for a belief, and that gets him into a lot of trouble when arguing over religious issues because he is so religious.

Do I?

Or is it that others do not accept an argument, unless grounded in what they consider to be reason?

[Ben Kenobi]

And Wiglaf:



Nice not to have the burden today.

And points for pushing Python.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, it is not a requirement for zygotes to form in the womb. We do have artifical insemination, and in-vitro fertilisation, that rely upon the capacity to form zygotes outside of the womb.

So clearly, your analogy doesn't hold.[/QUOTE]

My analogy is that they both need favorable conditions to develop. That does hold.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A better analogy, is that the womb provides shelter for the unborn child, much in the way, that houses do for us. For any life to grow and develop, requires the basics of food and shelter. For the unborn child, the food comes through the umbilical cord. For the unborn child, the shelter comes from the womb.

No, you don't understand how the development of life works in the womb then. The chemical differentials are critically important for telling the zygote-embryo-fetus how to develop. The food and nurishment provided by the mother is critically important to the development. Beyond that it is shelter-like, but that still is an issue of favorable conditions. Remove any of that, and you do not have

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I did not. I deliberately avoided the use of the term 'potential'.

Capacity does not imply 'potential' any more than it implies that the bucket is full. The bucket may be empty, but it is still a bucket.

You said "capacity to attain", that's the same thing as potential, I direct you to definition number 5:

ca·pac·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "capacity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ps-t)
n. pl. ca·pac·i·ties

.1.
....1. The ability to receive, hold, or absorb.
....2. Abbr. c. A measure of this ability; volume.
.2. The maximum amount that can be contained: a trunk filled to capacity.
.3.
....1. Ability to perform or produce; capability.
....2. The maximum or optimum amount that can be produced: factories operating below capacity.
.4. The power to learn or retain knowledge; mental ability.
.5. Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty. See Synonyms at ability.
.6. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to specified treatment: the capacity of elastic to be stretched.
.7. The position in which one functions; role: in your capacity as sales manager.
.8. Legal qualification or authority: the capacity to make an arrest.
.9. Electricity. Capacitance.

So don't play semantic word games.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And what do you call, and egg and sperm together? This is a zygote.

So your view is identical to mine. Sperm and egg cease to be as individual entities at conception.

They are closer to acheiving the potential of being a human being. DNA doesn't not make a human, though it is a requirement. You need a lot more than just the right DNA.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, the sperm is not a 'favourable condition'.

Yes it is. Just like the womb is a require condition for life to properly develop, so too is sperm.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Consider this. Look at the biology of conception. In terms of the DNA, both the sperm and egg contribute. A favourable condition for life, might be the shelter, or the food, but these conditions do not alter the nature of the life that we speak of.

Without either one the life cannot develop into a human. Without the right chemical balance, life cannot develop into a human. Otherwise you get no development or a mass of formless tissue. None of that is human.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The sperm does. The contribution of the sperm, changes the nature of the egg, in such a way, that the resultant entity is no longer sperm or egg, but the zygote.

Sure, but so does the contribution the mother gives in the womb-environment. Without the mother and the right chemical balance, there is no development. The mother is much more than mere shelter.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The egg, provides half of what is needed. It cannot provide all.

The Egg is less than half of what is needed. It is only half of the genetic requirement, but genetics can't make a human by themselves.

The idea that human life begins at conception is a silly one, that has no good basis. All you have at that point is one cell and later many cells, but it takes a while for form to develop, and more time for significant internal structure, then more time for that internal structure to even begin to have the requirements of a living human.

Yes, there is a grey area during this time where humanity can be hard to judge, and I have no problem with limiting when abortions can normally be done (exceptions made in extreme cases, such as the life of the mother), but before this grey area is a significant amount of time during which it is ludicrous to say that you have a human life. All that is there is the potential for one, but not an actual human life. You can have abortions during this time without any risk of degrading the value of life to society. There is no danger in allowing the practice then, and there are benefits, so it should be allowed.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I suggest you read what I have said on this issue.

I agree that faith ought to appeal to reason, but reason cannot wholly encompass faith.

Try to recall that I *have* read what you have to say on this, and we have talked about it. I strongly disagree with you. I agree though, that reason doesn't encompass faith, but that is because faith is fundamentally irrational in nature.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Reason has fundamental limitations, that become very obvious the more you read people like Kant, who raise reason as their primary commitment. How is it that reason, can be used as a tool to shun others?

Almost anything can be used as a tool to shun others, including faith. Neither is inherently about shunning though, or even requires it.

And I've read Kant, and he isn't the last word in reason, nor is he right about everything.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do I?

Or is it that others do not accept an argument, unless grounded in what they consider to be reason?

We shall let the test of time judge this, as I think (and hope you agree) that arguing over this would be fruitless.

-Drachasor

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Eh, I thought I would post a funny conversation I had and this ensues.

But fine, feel free to take up to challenge I gave him. Show me evidence that Bush's support of the FMA increased support of it.

I already replied to your post.