Science Matters #5: Josh is sick of debating grade school-level biology with pro-choicers.
If a pro-choicer meets Josh's challenge at the end, he will shut down this YouTube channel, currently th...
Science Matters #5: Josh is sick of debating grade school-level biology with pro-choicers.
If a pro-choicer meets Josh's challenge at the end, he will shut down this YouTube channel, currently the 4th most subscribed pro-life channel on YouTube.
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception." Source: Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School at the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.
The final U.S. Senate report from those hearings states, "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Source: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Remember, murder is not wrong because the person is self-aware of being killed and because they feel pain. Murder is wrong because you are killing an innocent human being!
If sense of self and pain were the foundations for the immorality of murder, then it would be okay to shoot a man in a coma, since he has no sense of self in that state and he cannot feel the pain. If you disagree, then why?
But that's not the case. Murder is wrong since you kill an innocent human being, which the fetus IS.
But unfortunately, Christians try to argue for the existance of this ideal morphology, under the mistaken assumption that science has the tools to reveal it. You asked to: "prove with science that the unborn fetus is not human." But you didn't provide a definition of human and seem unaware of The Species Problem. To understand your dilemna, keep asking yourself, "How did the I.A.U. 'prove with science' that Pluto is not a member of the set of planets?"
well hurry up cuz i'm freakin bored. In any case, this is not a pithy argument in the slightest. And, is a question that is taken very seriously by people who study the Philosophy of Biology. Unfortunately, most people are simply unaware that this branch of philosophy even exists. If you are Christian, you should argue that Natural Kinds exist, and Adam and Eve instantiated an "ideal morphology" (before the fall of man).
That's not a rule. I was talking in generalities, but somehow you never get the point. Or at least you don't act like you get the point. It occurs to me that you just want to keep asking the "well how do you KNOW" questions, without really making an argument of your own. I'll respond in full in an article you can post on your website, just as I promised. In the meantime, I'm on Christmas vacation, and I intend to spend the rest of it with my family, since we're not getting anywhere fast. Cheers.
Exactly. ok so we can write a rule. Josh Rule 1 - "Things that kind of look like Josh, are human." So now we just need to know how much a construct is allowed to vary (from the Josh template) before we deem said construct to be NOT human.
When I walk around and see these things that look, act and talk kind of like me, versus acting or sounding like dogs, cats, etc. I start with the assumption that they are a human being like me, and the other 6 billion similar things walking around. That seems to be a fair assumption. That doesn't mean there won't be exceptions. Mannequins may look human, but they are not. But if we agree with human equality, than we should be pretty sure something is NOT human before killing it, right?
Yeah, I disagree. I think it's pretty safe to say that some things are clearly biologically alive. Some people like to play the "skepticism game," which is very convenient because then you never have to make an argument. You just keep asking questions about how we can know this and that. I think there are some things we can KNOW. For example, I think child-rape is completely and definitely immoral. I don't think there's any circumstances where sexually abusing a 5-year-old is ok. Do you agree?
I'd probably ask you why you're skeptical of this. It seems to be pretty clear to most people that humans are connected by more than just arbitrary things.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
If sense of self and pain were the foundations for the immorality of murder, then it would be okay to shoot a man in a coma, since he has no sense of self in that state and he cannot feel the pain. If you disagree, then why?
But that's not the case. Murder is wrong since you kill an innocent human being, which the fetus IS.