Gunman shooting at abortion clinic in the US - multiple victims

[SoulMonster]

Of course we are born. That's when a human life starts. But this is not NEW life in the sense that there wasn't life before, it is just one life morphing into different form.

Right but the word 'new' didn't factor into the 'life begins at conception' statement, you put the word new in there and the concept of new life, this is what those that espouse the 'life begins at conception' theory meant the entire time, the fact that we are born, a human life starts, in your attempt to ridicule that theory you took it off on a tangent but i think it's pretty clear in a discussion about abortion when someone says 'life begins at conception' they are not saying there is a sodding big bang every time a babys born (not your kind anyway )

That's why I discussed and dismissed both interpretations (that they are talking about a new individual, and that they are talking about the "miracle of life" happening again and again on every conception) of what they might mean when they say it in the same post

[Len Cnut]

Of course we are born. That's when a human life starts. But this is not NEW life in the sense that there wasn't life before, it is just one life morphing into different form.

Right but the word 'new' didn't factor into the 'life begins at conception' statement, you put the word new in there and the concept of new life, this is what those that espouse the 'life begins at conception' theory meant the entire time, the fact that we are born, a human life starts, in your attempt to ridicule that theory you took it off on a tangent but i think it's pretty clear in a discussion about abortion when someone says 'life begins at conception' they are not saying there is a sodding big bang every time a babys born (not your kind anyway )

That's why I discussed and dismissed both interpretations (that they are talking about a new individual, and that they are talking about the "miracle of life" happening again and again on every conception) of what they might mean when they say it in the same post

Right, the miracle of human conception, human life is clearly what they mean, not life per se, why would you presume the latter, it's ridiculous

[SoulMonster]

Of course we die. You will die. I will die. The human species will die out. But life itself has so far not died out.

Right...but if it's all part of this life continum, the morphing process whereby there's basically one life-force and we are all morphing and changing within it, evolving or devolving or whatever...then essentially human life, in regards to individual life, is worthless.

You mean that because of redundancy each individual human life is worthless as long as some other survive to exist? That's barbaric, Lenny. This is not like ants where the colony's survival isn't dependent upon each individual and that each can be sacrificed without any problem. We are talking about human abilities that each hold and where the abilities individually are valuable, not only as part of a collective, but individually, stand-alone. This means that each human being is valuable and eligble for special protection and rights, on their own merits. Not because our species would crash if any single one of us would die, but because these abilities gives each and every one of us an intrinsic worth.

Of course we are born. That's when a human life starts. But this is not NEW life in the sense that there wasn't life before, it is just one life morphing into different form.

Right but the word 'new' didn't factor into the 'life begins at conception' statement, you put the word new in there and the concept of new life, this is what those that espouse the 'life begins at conception' theory meant the entire time, the fact that we are born, a human life starts, in your attempt to ridicule that theory you took it off on a tangent but i think it's pretty clear in a discussion about abortion when someone says 'life begins at conception' they are not saying there is a sodding big bang every time a babys born (not your kind anyway )

That's why I discussed and dismissed both interpretations (that they are talking about a new individual, and that they are talking about the "miracle of life" happening again and again on every conception) of what they might mean when they say it in the same post

Right, the miracle of human conception, human life is clearly what they mean, not life per se, why would you presume the latter, it's ridiculous

Because if you follow abortion debates you will actually see that many from the "pro life" movement believe that life itself, not just a human life form, starts over and over again whenever a human being is conceived. That's partly the miracle bit. They actually think that the life of every human being comes to be, for the first time, from something that was not alive before. CFrom dead components life is created. That is also when the soul enters the body. The sould wasn't there is the sperm and egg, it manifests itself as life spontaneously arises. Soul and life is interlinked. And yes, it is ridiculous! Part of my job here is to point to riduculous arguments, whether it is that a fertilized egg cell is a human being, or that every conception is a moment when life is created.

Edited December 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

You mean that because of redundancy each individual human life is worthless as long as some other survive to exist? That's barbaric, Lenny.

Exactly, thats exactly my point. Or maybe it's not barbaric. I mean fuck it, they're just advanced clumps of cells right? For the betterment of the human race if we could write off some of the plankton and get a more tightly run ship going there would be less hinderances to our evolution.

We are talking about human abilities that each hold and where the abilities individually are valuable, not only as part of a collective, but individually, stand-alone. This means that each human being is valuable and eligble for special protection and rights, on their own merits. Not because our species would crash if any single one of us would die, but because these abilities gives each and every one of us an intrinsic worth.

Agreed...but your position could be seen as negating these ideas. And what if they don't have any abilities as a individual that make them valuable? We're getting into Dr Mengele territory here.

Of course we die. You will die. I will die. The human species will die out. But life itself has so far not died out.

Right...but if it's all part of this life continum, the morphing process whereby there's basically one life-force and we are all morphing and changing within it, evolving or devolving or whatever...then essentially human life, in regards to individual life, is worthless.

You mean that because of redundancy each individual human life is worthless as long as some other survive to exist? That's barbaric, Lenny. This is not like ants where the colony's survival isn't dependent upon each individual and that each can be sacrificed without any problem. We are talking about human abilities that each hold and where the abilities individually are valuable, not only as part of a collective, but individually, stand-alone. This means that each human being is valuable and eligble for special protection and rights, on their own merits. Not because our species would crash if any single one of us would die, but because these abilities gives each and every one of us an intrinsic worth.

Of course we are born. That's when a human life starts. But this is not NEW life in the sense that there wasn't life before, it is just one life morphing into different form.

Right but the word 'new' didn't factor into the 'life begins at conception' statement, you put the word new in there and the concept of new life, this is what those that espouse the 'life begins at conception' theory meant the entire time, the fact that we are born, a human life starts, in your attempt to ridicule that theory you took it off on a tangent but i think it's pretty clear in a discussion about abortion when someone says 'life begins at conception' they are not saying there is a sodding big bang every time a babys born (not your kind anyway )

That's why I discussed and dismissed both interpretations (that they are talking about a new individual, and that they are talking about the "miracle of life" happening again and again on every conception) of what they might mean when they say it in the same post

Right, the miracle of human conception, human life is clearly what they mean, not life per se, why would you presume the latter, it's ridiculous

Because if you follow abortion debates you will actually see that many from the "pro life" movement believe that life itself, not just a human life form, starts over and over again whenever a human being is conceived. That's partly the miracle bit. They actually think that the life of every human being comes to be, for the first time, from something that was not alive before. CFrom dead components life is created. That is also when the soul enters the body. The sould wasn't there is the sperm and egg, it manifests itself as life spontaneously arises. Soul and life is interlinked. And yes, it is ridiculous! Part of my job here is to point to riduculous arguments, whether it is that a fertilized egg cell is a human being, or that every conception is a moment when life is created.

I have been over the pro life position many-a time, I've never taken it to mean any of the above.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

You mean that because of redundancy each individual human life is worthless as long as some other survive to exist? That's barbaric, Lenny.

Exactly, thats exactly my point. Or maybe it's not barbaric. I mean fuck it, they're just advanced clumps of cells right?

Now you are attempting, but failing, at using my words against me because I have NEVER claimed humans (or fetuses) are "just" clumps of cells, as in not being anything more than that. In fact, I have talked about how fetuses and humans are much more than clumps of cell. Large parts of this thread has been about WHY we humans have this intrinsic worth far surpassing any other living organisms (who also tend to be "clumps of cells").

[SoulMonster]

For the betterment of the human race if we could write off some of the plankton and get a more tightly run ship going there would be less hinderances to our evolution.

I don't know why you joke about this because there is nothing in anything I have said that could positivelly, unless with ill intent, be interpreted to support such horror. I will still take the time to answer.

You are basically arguing in favour of eugenics (to cull individuals in a population with less than favourable genetical characteristics in an effort to remove these from the gene pool). First off, this is in violation of my, and almost everyone else's) belief that EVERY individual is valuable and sacred. Yes, we have different abilities and skills, are are not born alike, but we ALL still have these human traits that automatically makes us sacred. It is in violation of human rights. It is barbaric. Secondly, eugenics as it has been practised didn't really work (due to recessivity of alleles; ask me if you want details on the genetics of heredity). Thirdly, reducing the size of a species gene pool makes that species LESS adaptable to changing conditions and hence less able to evolve when shit happens (because there are less genetic material for evolution to work with). So not only it it inhumane, it will also not work in the sense of "speeing up our evolution" in recognizably favourable ways.

Hey Diesel! You like to insinuate me as being in favour of eugenics, do you read this?

[Len Cnut]

You mean that because of redundancy each individual human life is worthless as long as some other survive to exist? That's barbaric, Lenny.

Exactly, thats exactly my point. Or maybe it's not barbaric. I mean fuck it, they're just advanced clumps of cells right?

Now you are attempting, but failing, at using my words against me because I have NEVER claimed humans (or fetuses) are "just" clumps of cells, as in not being anything more than that. In fact, I have talked about how fetuses and humans are much more than clumps of cell. Large parts of this thread has been about WHY we humans have this intrinsic worth far surpassing any other living organisms (who also tend to be "clumps of cells").

I'm not trying to use them against you Soulie dear, it's a pertinent point, you outlined a value that YOU saw but when you espouse a theory like this everyone that takes it on doesn't percieve value in the same way that you do or rather if they see a greater value in writing off a certain cross section then one overrides the other, as logic would dictate, the theory potentially lends itself to some pretty sociopathic points of view.

I mean, in a broader sense, if i personally were to take your theory on board i could extend the clump of cells idea to human beings as well. Cuz we are, aren't we, really? Every single human being on this earth doesn't contribute, isn't 'essential' or even necessarily beneficial to the on-going morphing organism. In fact greath swathes of the population could be wiped out this second and it wouldn't really make a lot of difference.

[SoulMonster]

We are talking about human abilities that each hold and where the abilities individually are valuable, not only as part of a collective, but individually, stand-alone. This means that each human being is valuable and eligble for special protection and rights, on their own merits. Not because our species would crash if any single one of us would die, but because these abilities gives each and every one of us an intrinsic worth.

Agreed...but your position could be seen as negating these ideas.

What position? That I know that life is unbroken? That I find the idea that a a fetus is a human being ridiculous? No, Lenny, only with ill intent or sloppy reading can you construe from my posts that I don't hold human life sacred and that every individual is sacred on its own. In fact, if you actually think about it, wouldn't the very fact that I argue so vehemently AGAINST the notion that a fetus is a human being imply that it is important to me because otherwise abortion WOULD be murder? That in itself suggested, if you are able to read between the line, that I hold every human life as sacred.

You mean that because of redundancy each individual human life is worthless as long as some other survive to exist? That's barbaric, Lenny.

Exactly, thats exactly my point. Or maybe it's not barbaric. I mean fuck it, they're just advanced clumps of cells right?

Now you are attempting, but failing, at using my words against me because I have NEVER claimed humans (or fetuses) are "just" clumps of cells, as in not being anything more than that. In fact, I have talked about how fetuses and humans are much more than clumps of cell. Large parts of this thread has been about WHY we humans have this intrinsic worth far surpassing any other living organisms (who also tend to be "clumps of cells").

I'm not trying to use them against you Soulie dear, it's a pertinent point

As long as you deliberately misquote me to make it appear as I consider humans (or fetuses) as JUST clumps of cells, you are failing at using my words against me, because those words aren't mine. I have never said what you claim I have.

[Len Cnut]

I don't know why you joke about this because there is nothing in anything I have said that could positivelly, unless with ill intent, be interpreted to support such horror. I will still take the time to answer.

But I'm not joking about it Soulie, I am taking things from it that it appears to be suggesting.

You are basically arguing in favour of eugenics (to cull individuals in a population with less than favourable genetical characteristics in an effort to remove these from the gene pool). First off, this is in violation of my, and almost everyone else's) belief that EVERY individual is valuable and sacred. Yes, we have different abilities and skills, are are not born alike, but we ALL still have these human traits that automatically makes us sacred. It is in violation of human rights.

Sacred why, how? Sacred, how bronze age of you! And no, I'm not arguing strictly in the favour of eugenics but yes there are elements of that thinking in there, eugenics is a lot to do with breeding too, I've not really gone into that aspect.

Thirdly, reducing the size of a species gene pool makes that species LESS adaptable to changing conditions and hence less able to evolve when shit happens (because there are less genetic material for evolution to work with). So not only it it inhumane, it will also not work in the sense of "speeing up our evolution" in recognizably favourable ways.

No ones talking about mass genocide here, although admittedly losing a million here or there, shouldn't make too much difference right? We don't wanna go too far into shrinking the gene pool.

[SoulMonster]

I mean, in a broader sense, if i personally were to take your theory on board i could extend the clump of cells idea to human beings as well. Cuz we are, aren't we, really? Every single human being on this earth doesn't contribute, isn't 'essential' or even necessarily beneficial to the on-going morphing organism. In fact greath swathes of the population could be wiped out this second and it wouldn't really make a lot of difference.

Again, I have never claimed that human's worth is connected to our being part of this unbroken chain I have -- probably at least 10 times now -- said that our value lies with our abilities, and now recently, not in a collective sense, but on individual level, meaning that each individual is as sacred as the other. Why do you insist on me repeating myself?

You are basically arguing in favour of eugenics (to cull individuals in a population with less than favourable genetical characteristics in an effort to remove these from the gene pool). First off, this is in violation of my, and almost everyone else's) belief that EVERY individual is valuable and sacred. Yes, we have different abilities and skills, are are not born alike, but we ALL still have these human traits that automatically makes us sacred. It is in violation of human rights.

Sacred why, how?

Read this thread form page 3 or so, I discuss at length that in my opinion human worth comes form our amazing ability for self-awareness, consciousness, emotional spectrum, etc. These are the amazing abilities shared by every individual, although of course differently expressed and manifested.

I'm not arguing strictly in the favour of eugenics but yes there are elements of that thinking in there, eugenics is a lot to do with breeding too, I've not really gone into that aspect.

How great, Lenny is not argung strictly in favour of eugenics. Only slightly, then?

And eugenics has EVERYTHING to do with breeding. Any type of breeding is eugenics in practise. Any dog race has gone through extensive eugenics programs to shape it through directed evolution.

[Len Cnut]

What position? That I know that life is unbroken? That I find the idea that a a fetus is a human being ridiculous? No, Lenny, only with ill intent or sloppy reading can you construe from my posts that I don't hold human life sacred and that every individual is sacred on its own. In fact, if you actually think about it, wouldn't the very fact that I argue so vehemently AGAINST the notion that a fetus is a human being imply that it is important to me because otherwise abortion WOULD be murder? That in itself suggested, if you are able to read between the line, that I hold every human life as sacred.

You can't control the interpretations of others though Soulie and when you epouse ideas like these and the interpretations are there to be made then they will be.

As long as you deliberately misquote me to make it appear as I consider humans (or fetuses) as JUST clumps of cells, you are failing at using my words against me, because those words aren't mine. I have never said what you claim I have.

I wasn't saying thats what you meant with those words, i was using the idea and taking it further.

[SoulMonster]

Thirdly, reducing the size of a species gene pool makes that species LESS adaptable to changing conditions and hence less able to evolve when shit happens (because there are less genetic material for evolution to work with). So not only it it inhumane, it will also not work in the sense of "speeing up our evolution" in recognizably favourable ways.

No ones talking about mass genocide here, although admittedly losing a million here or there, shouldn't make too much difference right? We don't wanna go too far into shrinking the gene pool.

With a popualtion of 5 billion, or so, losing a few millions would not have any affect on our species' chance of survival, right. Actually, we could kill off ALL people outside of Africa and the great majority of our gene pool would still be intact (because the genetic diversity of African peoples are so much higher than in people outside of Africa).

But again, each individual human's worth is not connected to that individual's affect on species survival. It is an intrinsic value independent on this. It derives directly from special abilities that separates us from the rest of life, that makes us unique and amazing.

[Len Cnut]

Again, I have never claimed that human's worth is connected to our being part of this unbroken chain I have -- probably at least 10 times now -- said that our value lies with our abilities, and now recently, not in a collective sense, but on individual level, meaning that each individual is as sacred as the other. Why do you insist on me repeating myself?

Just because you chose to ignore aspects of your own theory that lead, logically, onto some pretty messy shit doesn't mean those aspects are not there.

Read this thread form page 3 or so, I discuss at length that in my opinion human worth comes form our amazing ability for self-awareness, consciousness, emotional spectrum, etc. These are the amazing abilities shared by every individual, although of course differently expressed and manifested.

Whys it valuable in each individual instance though?

How great, Lenny is not argung strictly in favour of eugenics. Only slightly, then?

No, Lenny is saying that your theory leads to such arguments.

And eugenics has EVERYTHING to do with breeding. Any type of breeding is eugenics in practise. Any dog race has gone through extensive eugenics programs to shape it through directed evolution.

OK, well then my position has nothing at all to do with eugenics because i wasn't strictly talking about breeding.

Thirdly, reducing the size of a species gene pool makes that species LESS adaptable to changing conditions and hence less able to evolve when shit happens (because there are less genetic material for evolution to work with). So not only it it inhumane, it will also not work in the sense of "speeing up our evolution" in recognizably favourable ways.

No ones talking about mass genocide here, although admittedly losing a million here or there, shouldn't make too much difference right? We don't wanna go too far into shrinking the gene pool.

With a popualtion of 5 billion, or so, losing a few millions would not have any affect on our species' chance of survival, right. Actually, we could kill off ALL people outside of Africa and the great majority of our gene pool would still be intact (because the genetic diversity of African peoples are so much higher than in people outside of Africa).

But again, each individual human's worth is not connected to that individual's affect on species survival. It is an intrinsic value independent on this. It derives directly from special abilities that separates us from the rest of life, that makes us unique and amazing.

A value that you can't explain to me apparently.

[SoulMonster]

As long as you deliberately misquote me to make it appear as I consider humans (or fetuses) as JUST clumps of cells, you are failing at using my words against me, because those words aren't mine. I have never said what you claim I have.

I wasn't saying thats what you meant with those words, i was using the idea and taking it further.

Okay, then you were saying that it isn't barbaric to kill off humans because they are clumps of cells? That's about as moronic as claiming it isn't wrong to kill humans because they are only "bundles of atoms". Like in the flawed logics behind arguments like "rocks are worthless, rocks are bundles of atoms, humans and also bundles of atoms, hence humans must be worthless". Or, "rats are clumps of cells, rats are worthless, humans are also clumps of cells, hence humans must be worthless".

[SoulMonster]

Again, I have never claimed that human's worth is connected to our being part of this unbroken chain I have -- probably at least 10 times now -- said that our value lies with our abilities, and now recently, not in a collective sense, but on individual level, meaning that each individual is as sacred as the other. Why do you insist on me repeating myself?

Just because you chose to ignore aspects of your own theory that lead, logically, onto some pretty messy shit doesn't mean those aspects are not there.

I don't ignore any aspect in "my theory" (what theory would that be, exactly? The fact that life is an unbroken chain? ), I think it is you who struggle with the logics part here. It is YOU who for some unknown reason think that I mean that the life of human's is connected to the fact that we, like every other organism, is part of an unbroken chain of life, or that every individual's worth is connected to its affect on our species' survival. Those brain farts are entirely your own making, not mine. You are the one making that illogical step and then arguing that since I think so -- which I don't -- then individual human life can't be worth anything.

What I am saying, and have probably said 11 times now, is that each human being is sacred due to his/her own human abilities, like self-awareness, consciousness and emotional capacity. You are the one that insists on not getting this.

[Len Cnut]

Okay, then you were saying that it isn't barbaric to kill off humans because they are clumps of cells? That's about as moronic as claiming it isn't wrong to kill humans because they are only "bundles of atoms".

Hey look, the overall cycle of life is still rolling, whats the problem if i go kill a few prostitutes, they're just morphing into a different plane of existence, what about homeless next of kin-less bums, what good are they to anyone? Or orphans, it's just clumps of cells at an advanced state, it's not like i'm talking about blocking out the sun here. If I can gain something from it then whats the problem?

[SoulMonster]

Read this thread form page 3 or so, I discuss at length that in my opinion human worth comes form our amazing ability for self-awareness, consciousness, emotional spectrum, etc. These are the amazing abilities shared by every individual, although of course differently expressed and manifested.

Whys it valuable in each individual instance though?

Because its value doesn't lie in its uniqueness. Like money, 1000 bucks is worth 1000 bucks regardless of how many 1000 bucks exist.

A value that you can't explain to me apparently.

Yeah, that much is obvious

Okay, then you were saying that it isn't barbaric to kill off humans because they are clumps of cells? That's about as moronic as claiming it isn't wrong to kill humans because they are only "bundles of atoms".

Hey look, the overall cycle of life is still rolling, whats the problem if i go kill a few prostitutes

Because every human life is sacred.

You know what, I am sitting at an airport with maaaany hours until my flight leaves. I can repeat myself until morning breaks if you like that game.

[Len Cnut]

I don't ignore any aspect in "my theory" (what theory would that be, exactly? The fact that life is an unbroken chain? ), I think it is you who struggle with the logics part here. It is YOU who for some unknown reason think that I mean that the life of human's is connected to the fact that we, like every other organism, is part of an unbroken chain of life, or that every individual's worth is connected to its affect on our species' survival.

don't get all tarty with me now about it being your theory, you were the one telling Dies' about how this was your 'spirituality' and more informed than those other kinds of bronze age afflicted mentalitys.

So...the lives of humans isn't connected to the fact that we, and indeed all other organisms, are part of an unbroken chain of life?

What I am saying, and have probably said 11 times now, is that each human being is sacred due to his/her own human abilities, like self-awareness, consciousness and emotional capacity. You are the one that insists on not getting this.

And what I've asked you, consistently, over and over again is to explain how. Why do those things make each human 'sacred', explain it to me, why is that complicated for you? I'd stop using the word sacred too, it's kinda counter-scientific.

Because its value doesn't lie in its uniqueness. Like money, 1000 bucks is worth 1000 bucks regardless of how many 1000 bucks exist.

Thats not answering my question. And i don't think you can either.

Because every human life is sacred.

You know what, I am sitting at an airport with maaaany hours until my flight leaves. I can repeat myself until morning breaks if you like that game.

Sorry but you can't say sacred, you are literally disqualified from using that word, that is the language of religion, sacred means connected to God, don't take me all this way on science and then point to the heavens in the 12th round, that ain't fair

[SoulMonster]

I don't ignore any aspect in "my theory" (what theory would that be, exactly? The fact that life is an unbroken chain? ), I think it is you who struggle with the logics part here. It is YOU who for some unknown reason think that I mean that the life of human's is connected to the fact that we, like every other organism, is part of an unbroken chain of life, or that every individual's worth is connected to its affect on our species' survival.

don't get all tarty with me now about it being your theory, you were the one telling Dies' about how this was your 'spirituality' and more informed than those other kinds of bronze age afflicted mentalitys.

Because it isn't a theory. It is a fact that all life forms are interconnected in this way and that life, as far as we know it, has only originated once. It's like referring to me talking about the Earth's motion around the Sun as "my theory"

That I find this so fascinating and awesome that pondering upon these things is as close to a religious feeling I suppose I can come, and hence refers to it as a form of spirituality, has nothing to do wit the fact that you -- for unnown reasons -- got this messed up with the foundation for human worth and even think that human worth derives from its effect on the collective.

[Len Cnut]

The fact is your argument has hit a wall because you can't see your ideas and lines of logic through to their natural conclusion because their natural conclusion is some ugly shit, at a certain point it becomes about the sacred and the holy, which is a total about face from all the shit you been talking about in this thread...what it's all about basically is this sacred thing called life, human life and the potential to create it. When something is sacred the rules are different for it compared to the construction of a bike or a motor vehicle, the potential to create that which is sacred is of a much higher value than just 'x' bullshit, and thats the difference between your argument and the other side, you dictate that its sacred only when the person is born and the other side argue that by virtue of what it is sacred the potential for it to become what it is set to become (i.e. a human being) is similarly sacred.

Unless you wanna nix the sacred bit and we can go back to rebooting The Final Solution?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

So...the lives of humans isn't connected to the fact that we, and indeed all other organisms, are part of an unbroken chain of life?

Yes, the WORTH of humans is not connected to the fact we, and indeed all other organisms, are part of an unbroken chain of life. That is exactly what I have stated many times now.

Read this now since it doesn't seem like you have read them before:

No, we humans are valuable because of what we can do, not because we aren't part of this remarkable unbroken chain of life that dates back to abiogenesis, or because we are different in this regards to every other life form on Earth. We are special because of what we can do, or rather think.

Just because life itself never seems to have originated more than once, and that it has for billion of years just diversied and morphed into new forms and shapes, doesn't in any way take away from the value we have due to our special abilities and position.

Again, I have never claimed that human's worth is connected to our being part of this unbroken chain

It is YOU who for some unknown reason think that I mean that the life of human's is connected to the fact that we, like every other organism, is part of an unbroken chain of life, or that every individual's worth is connected to its affect on our species' survival.

[Len Cnut]

All this does is bring us back to the 'not all human life is essential' bit. At least have the nuts to commit yourself to what your ideas propose Soulie. Why is each and every last one so valuable then?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

What I am saying, and have probably said 11 times now, is that each human being is sacred due to his/her own human abilities, like self-awareness, consciousness and emotional capacity. You are the one that insists on not getting this.

And what I've asked you, consistently, over and over again is to explain how. Why do those things make each human 'sacred', explain it to me, why is that complicated for you? I'd stop using the word sacred too, it's kinda counter-scientific.

No, the only thing you have been consistent about is misunderstanding.

But why do these special abilities grant us special rights? That's probably a good question. Why does we hold things dear that is awesome and remarkable to us? Why do we find a sunset precious? Why do we think that human's ability to reason is more valuable than, say, a bat's ability to echolocalize and therefore it should have special rights? I would say because our abilties surpass anything else found in the biosphere, and is the guarantee for enjoying life -- something we don't think any other species is able to do.

I don't care whether you don't think 'sacred' is scientific enough for me. In this context it is only meant as something that is very, very, very valuable, to the extent of approaching religious holiness. There is no supernatural component to it.

The fact is your argument has hit a wall because you can't see your ideas and lines of logic through to their natural conclusion

And I think it is you who are struggling with the logics here, like you have consistently, while at the same time fuddling up what I have been saying and mistaking things for each other.

There is no "ugly shit" logically stemming from these few statements:

- The value of a human life stems for our individual amazing abilities, and not from what they mean to the collective human species.

- We are all part of an unbroken chain of life originating (presumably) from one instance of life coming to be.

[SoulMonster]

All this does is bring us back to the 'not all human life is essential' bit. At least have the nuts to commit yourself to what your ideas propose Soulie. Why is each and every last one so valuable then?

I have EXPLICITLY stated that not every individual is necesarry for the species' survival. In that sense, not every instance of human life is essential, either, for the species' survival.

Each and every one is valuable because each and everyone has very valuable abilities. We all have something that is remarkable and fantastic and amazing and awesome, not because of what it does to our species, but what it can do alone -- like be self-aware, think, feel compassion, do good things, feel love -- and these things have an INTRINSIC value. At least, that is my humble opinion.

Edited December 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

No, the only thing you have been consistent about is misunderstanding.

But why do these special abilities grant us special rights? That's probably a good question. Why does we hold things dear that is awesome and remarkable to us? Why do we find a sunset precious? Why do we think that human's ability to reason is more valuable than, say, a bat's ability to echolocalize and therefore it should have special rights? I would say because our abilties surpass anything else found in the biosphere, and is the guarantee for enjoying life -- something we don't think any other species is able to do.

I don't care whether you don't think 'sacred' is scientific enough for me. In this context it is only meant as something that is very, very, very valuable, to the extent of approaching religious holiness. There is no supernatural component to it.

You're not answering the question, you're dithering. Explain to me the value of human life, this value that makes it sacred and dictates that it is not expendable in any way. It's the same question again and again, alls I'm asking is that you explain yourself.

And I think it is you who are struggling with the logics here, like you have consistently, while at the same time fuddling up what I have been saying and mistaking things for each other.

You're welcome to put me right any time.

There is no "ugly shit" logically stemming from these few statements:

- The value of a human life stems for our individual amazing abilities, and not from what they mean to the collective human species.

- We are all part of an unbroken chain of life originating (presumably) from one instance of life coming to be.

There are when you put the latter comment in it's original context of being stated in a discussion regarding abortion and, more specifically, to explain why the birth of a child is not the beginning of life but rather part of an ever evolving and morphing overall lifeform, there are implications to that and conclusions that can be reached from there that are kinda ugly.

I have EXPLICITLY stated that not every individual is necesarry for the species' survival. In that sense, not every instance of human life is essential, either, for the species' survival.

Each and every one is valuable because each and everyone has very valuable abilities. We all have something that is remarkable and fantastic and amazing and awesome, not because of what it does to our species, but what it can do alone -- like be self-aware, think, feel compassion, do good things, feel love -- and these things have an INTRINSIC value. At least, that is my humble opinion.

How can you be valuable and sacred in each individual instance but inessential at the same time?