[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Come on Bobo, those cases you described are complitely different kind of. They are not comparable by any means with what RC said, which makes it an unfair comparison of cases. What RC said about abortion was very well said indeed.[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, as Hasdrubal infers later, they are comporable [i]if your morality allows that some people are different from others, and therefore have differnt or lesser rights[/i]. If one group is less than me, then I have a [i]right[/i] to enslave them. In fact, if they're nmot even human, I have a right to kill them.
[quote][b]You seem to be quite smart what I've noticed from your posts in here, so you should see the great difference of those cases very easily.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, I do see the absurdity of the comparisons, but they are perfectly rational if the proper assumptions are made.
I think Hasdrubal [url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117759#post117759]states it pretty well[/url]. Based on my beliefs, experiences, and faith, I believe a human becomes a human before birth. Because of those beliefs, it is [i]immoral[/i] as defined in both sides of the discussion above to allow the taking of such lives.
[quote][b]And yes, religious thoughts ARE irrational if they are not based on observed and proven facts of reality, which is everything we can base our known facts on and what we can base any rational decisions on. In which case they would not actually even be religious thoughts really, at least not solely. Everything else is fictional/mythical.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
It is beyond my comprehension that humanity is capable of understanding everything either through observation or understanding. Because of this, it follows that rational thought, as you define it above, is incomplete, and is only as valid as the [i]assumptions[/i] its based upon.
I appreciate the honest discussion on this.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]Actually, as Hasdrubal infers later, they are comporable [i]if your morality allows that some people are different from others, and therefore have differnt or lesser rights[/i]. If one group is less than me, then I have a [i]right[/i] to enslave them. In fact, if they're nmot even human, I have a right to kill them.
[/b][/quote]
I believe you are taking Hasdrubal's comments without understanding their meaning. The question is at what point life begins. In this point of view there are widely varying arguments:
- Religious moralist believe life is created at point of conception
- Common society tends to place life to be created at the point of birth
- Pychological analysts will place the point of consciousness somewhere between 18 months and 3 years
Hasdrubal quite clearly points out that the basis of your argument Bobo is that you assume that life begins somewhere before birth. Otherwise your comparitive arguments seem outlandish. I believe that the proper point at which to define the beginning of a life is when that life is born and no longer dependent on another for their life. So long as you are unborn, you are dependent upon the mother (in the absence of technology to replace the functions of a mother). After you are born you are still a dependent, but you are no longer locked to the life and wellbeing of another as a result of biological development.
To take your argument that life begins before birth to an extremum, I could argue that since the being is alive, by them being trapped within the mother and required to be dependent upon the mother is an immorality and actually slavery of the embryo. Therefore the embryo must be removed and let grow on it's own, even in cases where there is insufficient technological machinery by which to keep the child alive.
Now to go the other way to claim that a child is no sentient until they are a couple years old. This harkens back to the days where infanticide was common.
Here is my opinion: Any choice as to abortion should only be made based on medical and support reasons. What I mean by support reasons is "can I support this child." I do not believe that an embryo should ever be aborted based on "it doesn't have green eyes" or "I wanted a boy instead of a girl."
[quote][b]
Yes, I do see the absurdity of the comparisons, but they are perfectly rational if the proper assumptions are made.[/b][/quote]
And these proper assumptions must be very specific assumptions which a great deal of people don't agree with. This is actually what my complaint is against, moreso then the issue of abortion, gay marrage, etc. I do not like other's belief's being forced down my throat. I embrace the right for others to have those beliefs, but I will fight for the right for everyone to have their own sets of beliefs. And so no picks this argument appart with the idea of murder, no actions undertaken within a belief set should be allowed to infringe upon any person and their property within any other belief set. This means if there is a belief set that believes in murder, so long as they only murder those who subscribe to that belief set I have no problem, but as soon as they murder someone in a belief set that does not believe in murder, we have a problem.
Our society as a whole believes that murder is wrong. Therefore we have laws against murder. However, half our society believes that abortions are not wrong. But the half that does wants to force their belief set upon the half that has no problem with abortions. This is where I cry foul.
back to global warming, I'm 100% unconvinced. Actually, I think it's cooling down overall...
theres a simple explanation for the increase in temperatures in the summer, and colder temperatures in the winter.
Cities.
cities = concrete
concrete = more extream temperatures.
in the summer, it's always about 10* F cooler at my house then it is in the city 20 miles away.
in the winter, eh, about the same.
but where are the temperature gauges used to measure the temp of the earth? IN CITIES.
so it's a no duh it's getting warmer, because theres so much concrete that is holding residual heat. take temps from the country, away from a city, and temps are consistant with those 100 years ago, if not a little cooler.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]but where are the temperature gauges used to measure the temp of the earth? IN CITIES. [/B][/QUOTE]
No they arn't. Certainly not all of them. I don't think there are any cities in places like the Artic or Antarctica, for a start. You generally find weather stations where official temperature readings are taken in large open spaces because they measure other things like humidity and wind speed too (they arn't just a thermometer on a wall). If you're interested, go and ask to see a local one (universities are good places to try) - they're rather interesting. Auckland's main weather measuring station is at Auckland International Airport surrounded by a large grass field, a 30 minute drive from the CBD. There are numourous other ones around the city in places like school fields and parks and university campuses.
Even if news stations may report temperatures that are often recorded in cities, scientists still use proper measuring equipment with methodology that has been developed over a long time. They don't watch the local news at night and make a note of the reported figures, and they also don't just rely on temperatures taken in urban areas, they use data from all over the world and in a huge number of locations ranging from mountains to valleys to urban areas to plains.
As for the difference in temperature between your house and the city 20 miles away, yes part of that would be due to the temperature characteristics of the materials urban buildings are made of, but part of it will also be due to the fact that you're 20 miles away. Weather patterns arn't just on a large scale.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
You clearly don't understand the way science is done A% if you believe what you have said. Temperature information is collected on a world-wide basis. % of water frozen is also determined as a rating of how cold the Earth is.
I might point out that a recent article I read (a few months back) said that recent research has shown that the entire US is sinking. Why? Becuase the glaciers in northern Canada are melting. Since the North American continental plate is floating on the molten mantle of the planet, when the glaciers melt, the whole continent acts as a see-saw and canada rises as the US sinks. I seem to recall that the US is sinking by a matter of a few millimeters per year at this point, and that the rate of melting of the glaciers is increasing. As the US sinks, eventually (after tens or hundreds of years) costal areas will be underwater that were once well above water. The data for this was collected by satelite. This entire example shows one example of how global warming is effecting us in the United States.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]...[/B][/QUOTE]
[i]By JOHN HEILPRIN[/i]
The Associated Press
Monday, November 8, 2004; 9:01 AM
WASHINGTON - Scientists say changes in the earth's climate from human influences are occurring particularly intensely in the Arctic region, evidenced by widespread melting of glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures.
A study released Monday said the annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased by about 8 percent in the past 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice - an area bigger than Texas and Arizona combined.
In the past half-century, average yearly temperatures in Alaska and Siberia rose by about 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit and winters in Alaska and western Canada warmed by an average of 5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit.
With "some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth," the Arctic regions' melting contributed to sea levels rising globally by an average of about three inches in the past 20 years, the report said.
"These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming," says the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study by 300 scientists in eight Arctic-bordering nations, including the United States.
This most comprehensive study of Arctic warming to date adds yet more impetus to the projections by many of the world's climate scientists that there will be a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.
It is based on ice core samples and other evidence of climate conditions such as on-the-ground and satellite measurements of surface air temperatures. Nations participating in the study besides the United States are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.
"The bottom line is that the Arctic is warming now, much more rapidly than the rest of the globe, and it's impacting people directly," Robert Corell, chairman of the scientists' study panel and a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society, said Sunday.
The process is only likely to accelerate in the Arctic, a region that provides important resources such as oil, gas and fish, the study finds.
That would wreak havoc on polar bears, ice-dependent seals, caribou and reindeer herds - and local people such as Inuit whose main food source comes from hunting those animals. Some endangered migratory birds are projected to lose more than half their breeding areas.
The study projects that in the next 100 years the yearly average temperatures will increase by 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit over land and 13 to 18 degrees over the ocean, mainly because the water absorbs more heat.
Forests would expand into the Arctic tundra, which in turn would expand into the polar ice deserts, because rising temperatures would favor taller, denser vegetation. The areas of Arctic tundra would shrink to their smallest extent since 21,000 years ago when, humans began emerging from the last Ice Age.
"It's happening much more quickly than we had anticipated as recently as five years ago, and it has global implications due to the opening of the Arctic sea ice, providing for new marine transportation routes," said Corell, who from 1986 to 2000 headed a roughly $2 billion-a-year U.S. research program into climate and other global environmental changes.
Since it takes decades if not centuries to reverse warming from carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, some damage is inevitable, though longer-term impacts could be "reduced significantly" by cutting emissions globally this century, the study says.
Sea levels globally already are expected to rise between another four inches to three feet or more this century. Longer term, if temperatures continue to rise unabated, in the range of 5 degrees to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next several centuries, sea levels would rise alarmingly.
In that scenario, the study projects "a virtually complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet," which would contribute as much as 23 feet to the world's sea level rise.
For what little it's worth, my take on global warming is this: has the Earth remained in a steady state climate model for the last 4billion years? Of course not. There have been several ice ages, and during the time of the dinosaurs, much of the earth was a humid tropical jungle. Even as recently as Medieval times, Europe was supposed to have been much warmer, right?
Both sides can produce data showing that they are right. This means we need better data. But whatever properly collected information we get will probably show change, because the Earth is always changing. Always has, always will. Personally, I think we should wait until most of the scientific community can come to a consensus before we enter into something as restrictive as Kyoto. Also, any such agreement must be fair to all parties involved. However, I don't like pollution either, so perhaps we in the US should try to clean up our act. I would be satisfied with something between California's level of restriction, and what the rest of the country has now.
The real question to me, is dare we try to hold the Earth in its current state, if natural forces push it to change? How many mass extinctions have there been in the Earth's history? I can only think of two, the Cambrian and the one that got the dinosaurs, but were there more? And wasn't there a volcanic eruption a few years back in the Phillipines that released more CO2 than the entire industrial history of Man?
The point is this. We don't really understand the forces at work. We should. However, to even try and hold things as they are now, could be considered trying to play God as much as trashing and polluting the planet. So instead of frantically trying to fix every problem we see, real or imagined, we should be frantically trying to understand the level of damage we might cause in intervention. After all, some climate models predict a near-term ice age. And ask yourselves. Do we really want to terraform..... Terra?
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Hasdrubal has a good point - do we really know if the global warming is a result of man or could it be part of the natural cycle of the planet? What we do know is that out-of-control global warming would turn the Earth into a planet like Venus - extremely hot poisonous atmosphere. I have heard said that what human pollution of greenhouse gasses is doing is just speeding up the current global warming cycle that will lead to a new ice age rather then having created the global warming itself. The real question is will humans interupt this cycle in some way that will cause the ice age never to happen - such a result would be disasterous. We cannot try and terraform our planet, but that is what we are doing with this greenhouse emmission. Therefore we really do need better air pollution controls, but we would be equally screwed if such pollution controls moved into a reactionary phase and tried to clean up the mess that already exists.
From what I have seen the Earth cleans itself. The problem right now is it can't clean as fast as we are emitting. Therefore we need to reduce OUR (non-natural) emissions so that the Earth can clean itself.
Regardless of what you think about pollution and global warming I think we can all agree the point here is for all of us to use common sense...
I would hope that the people on this board shut down their computer at night and turn of lights and TV’s when not in use. Turn the thermostat down by 2 or 4 degrees. I would hope they walk rather than drive the five blocks to the grocery story or mailbox. I would hope that people recycle and reuse as much as they can. Purchase meat, fruits, and vegetables in minimal packaging rather than over packed processed foods and carry the food home in re-used cloth bags.
The sad thing is most of the people who point fingers and lay blame so quickly are GUITLY of raping the planet themselves.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
My computer stays on 24/7, but it does actually do stuff in that time. I don't waste power leaving the monitors on though, not even in "standby." If I'm not in the room the monitors are off. We don't have a thermostat as we don't have air conditioning. I don't own and have no plans to own a car, since I can walk anywhere i may need to go locally (eg dentist, shops, all within a 15 minute walk of my house), and there are busses every 20 minutes to the city that stop 5 minutes walk from my house and 10 minute's walk from uni.
(No, I'm not claiming to be perfect.)
I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone - I just wanted to post something that everyo.... well... ...at least a majority of the people here could agree with for a change. :p
I think we all have to give ourselves credit for a definite improvement since the 1970's. The work is not done for sure, but we are moving in a positive direction, just maybe not enough unfortunately.
If we could pluck out California and chuck it into space I think the USA numbers would improve dramatically! :D :p
I leave my computer on overnight some times... thats only when I'm downloading large files. And of course I turn off the Monitor. Also my monitor is set to turn off after 10 minutes of Idle time.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well...I try to conserve energy in general (lights and such), though my computer is processing 24 hours a day (when I am not away from my home overnight...the only time I turn it off other then t-storms). Though I do have a car...I don't drive it all that much. Have to say though that it impossible getting arround without a car in the DC metro area - the mass transit system just isn't good enough to get most places...unless it's on the Metro system good luck...and most suburbs are not connected well using Metro (if at all) - its only real use is to go from Suburbs to DC or vice versa.
I agree - a society that watches what they do is much better. If only industry would adopt that standard too... I dislike regulations of that sort, but when they clearly flout common sense in favor of greed someone has to knock sense into them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]I believe you are taking Hasdrubal's comments without understanding their meaning.
[/b][/quote]
Actually, I understood his meaning, but apparently did a poor job in conveying mine. :(
The (attempted) point was that one relativistic ethical view is no better than another. This has obvious implications to the abortion discussion, but that was not my main intent.
Consider your closing paragraph:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]Our society as a whole believes that murder is wrong. Therefore we have laws against murder. However, half our society believes that abortions are not wrong. But the half that does wants to force their belief set upon the half that has no problem with abortions. [i]This is where I cry foul[/i].[/B][/QUOTE]
To the group that considers life to begin at conception, there is no difference between the two choices you present. Again, to exagerate the point, their interpretation of the above is:
[QUOTE]Our society as a whole believes that murder is wrong. Therefore we have laws against murder. However, half our society believes that the murdering of children is not wrong. [/QUOTE]
In the same way, the second group would take issue to leaving an infant outside to allow it to die, a common enough practice in Roman times, where the view was similar to the third group you identified.
Once more, my point is not about abortion, but that claiming a relativistic ethical view is superior to a religious one leads to many contradictions. Consider another point you made:
[quote]I believe that the proper point at which to define the beginning of a life is when that life is born and no longer dependent on another for their life.[/quote]
Under this definition, any child less than 12 months is not a live, since leaving such a child alone would lead to their eventual death. Additionally, many adults with mental or physical handicaps could be considered dependent on another for their food, shelter, and companionship, so by this definition, they are not alive.
I'm not saying you believe these things; please don't take it that way. I'm merely pointing out that any relativistic morality will eventually lead to contradictions.
Good points, Hasdrubal, about the climate. I think we're mostly in agreement here.
[quote][i]Originally brilliantly stated by Konrad[/i]
[b]I would hope that the people on this board shut down their computer at night and turn of lights and TV’s when not in use. Turn the thermostat down by 2 or 4 degrees. I would hope they walk rather than drive the five blocks to the grocery story or mailbox. I would hope that people recycle and reuse as much as they can. Purchase meat, fruits, and vegetables in minimal packaging rather than over packed processed foods and carry the food home in re-used cloth bags.[/b][/quote]
Computer check...lights check...AC check...driving, nope to far out of town...recycle, check...packaging, hmm, I could do better there...bags, I recycle the plastic ones, so check. Looking good :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B][IMG]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1484268_zoom.jpg[/IMG]
A rather strong image, but totally incorrect. It ain't the book that's the enemy. ;)
It's the faulty self-serving interpretations of it that are a dime-a-dozen (once again, mere people with twisted agendas).
There's the enemy. ;)
I'd take that book over the invisible entity wielding that knife... [/B][/QUOTE]
I know the book isnt, but it gets a point accross.
Anyway... I know its Remixed War Propaganda, Is it based on German or Allie Propaganda?
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]Actually, I understood his meaning, but apparently did a poor job in conveying mine. :([/b][/quote]
More likely our views are so different I didn't see how you picked up what you did from Hasdrubal's argument.
[QUOTE][B]Under this definition, any child less than 12 months is not a live, since leaving such a child alone would lead to their eventual death. Additionally, many adults with mental or physical handicaps could be considered dependent on another for their food, shelter, and companionship, so by this definition, they are not alive.[/B][/QUOTE]
Clarification:
Actually that was my 3rd definition. My 2nd definition is when one is no longer dependent on the original mother, excluding machinery. This means that some other human can replace the mother at that point without the aid of machinery and technology. Thus this is the point of birth, not the point that you mentioned is 12 months later.
-----------
More importantly this entire discussion brings up why this issue will never be solved in the near term in our society: there are two opposing positions that have no commonality in beliefs and thus have no reference from which to see each other's beliefs.
--RC
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]A rather strong image, but totally incorrect. It ain't the book that's the enemy. ;)
It's the faulty self-serving interpretations of it that are a dime-a-dozen (once again, mere people with twisted agendas).
There's the enemy. ;)
I'd take that book over the invisible entity wielding that knife... [/B][/QUOTE]
And we have been and still are as guilty of these self-serving interpretations as are our enemies.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Reaver4k [/i]
[B][img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1586109_zoom.jpg[/img]
These types of war propaganda are nothing new. What is new is the fact that it isn't our enemies putting out this type of propaganda...it is our allies, our freinds, and our citizens.
This to me clearly says there is something wrong with the entire way the US has gone in the last 4 years. Unfortunately the people of our great nation have yet to wake up to this fact.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]Clarification:
Actually that was my 3rd definition. My 2nd definition is when one is no longer dependent on the original mother, excluding machinery. This means that some other human can replace the mother at that point without the aid of machinery and technology. Thus this is the point of birth, not the point that you mentioned is 12 months later.[/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting...
I'm a Christian in faith, and yet I don't believe that abortion is murder. I think it is a sin in the respect that it can be abused for the purpose of birth control.
I'm sure I'll burn in Hell in the minds of many here and elsewhere, but here it goes.
_____
Strictly speaking from a theological standpoint (all you evolutionists, etc will have to sit this one out ;) ), I don't hold to the idea that some of the verses in the Bible that are used to say it is murder and a sin hold very well.
The common one that is used quite often is the one in the psalms where God knew the person in the womb and what that child would become.
This speaks to a whole different theological point that I won't go into here about Gods Omniscience and the theory of pre-destiny.
I have yet to see ANYONE point out a verse that specifically calls abortion murder. I welcome that day, as it would make a pointed difference in my outlook on it.
If we are to draw corelations between the story of creation, and the continuing saga of birth and death in the human story from a standpoint of faith, we see God create Adam from the dust of the Earth, formed in his image, yet not alive until God BREATHED the breath of life into Adam. Once Adam could maintain the cycle of life on his own, he was then alive.
A child is formed in our image in the womb, and depends upon it's host (mom), until birth and the first breath of air when it cries. Therefor to me, life begins at birth with the first breath of air.
_____
I'm sure that someone will stand up here at this point and bring up the killing of male children of 1 year old or less in Egypt to prevent Moses from coming into existence, but I still haven't seen exact language about those inthe womb.
I invite provable correction in this regard... ;)
_____
BTW, on another note (once again a point of interpretation)... The Ten Commandment's doesn't include "Thou Shalt Not Kill...", it says "Thou Shalt Not Murder." There is a difference.
Christian or not, someone threatens the life or limb of me or my wife and family, don't think for one second that that persons life wouldn't be on the chopping block wholesale... ;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B][img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1586096_zoom.jpg[/img][/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that explains why he isn't worried about global warming.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hasdrubal [/i]
[B]And wasn't there a volcanic eruption a few years back in the Phillipines that released more CO2 than the entire industrial history of Man?[/B][/QUOTE]Wrong amount of annual CO2 emissions from Volcanoes is miniscule compared to mankinds emissions.
And actually bigger eruptions cause colder weather. (mean temperature of year after Pinatubo's eruption was colder than normal)
"Supervolcano" Toba which is like Yellowstone nearly exterminated mankind when erupting about 70 000 years ago.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
[B]...Turn the thermostat down by 2 or 4 degrees.[/B][/QUOTE]I don't think that's necessary, temperature of my bedroom is already about 15 C. :D
Althought it wouldn't make any difference if it would be more than that, we have central heating system using firewoods.
(burning wood doesn't add any new CO2 to circulation, unlike burning fossil fuels)
Energy required for heating could be significantly reduced in many countries by building better insulated houses.
Actually there's also other advantage from couple degrees colder room temperature, because amount of dust mites "explodes" after certain temperature, which is near 25 C.
[img]http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/media/e/eb/house_dust_mite.jpg[/img]
Comments
[B]Come on Bobo, those cases you described are complitely different kind of. They are not comparable by any means with what RC said, which makes it an unfair comparison of cases. What RC said about abortion was very well said indeed.[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, as Hasdrubal infers later, they are comporable [i]if your morality allows that some people are different from others, and therefore have differnt or lesser rights[/i]. If one group is less than me, then I have a [i]right[/i] to enslave them. In fact, if they're nmot even human, I have a right to kill them.
[quote][b]You seem to be quite smart what I've noticed from your posts in here, so you should see the great difference of those cases very easily.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, I do see the absurdity of the comparisons, but they are perfectly rational if the proper assumptions are made.
I think Hasdrubal [url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117759#post117759]states it pretty well[/url]. Based on my beliefs, experiences, and faith, I believe a human becomes a human before birth. Because of those beliefs, it is [i]immoral[/i] as defined in both sides of the discussion above to allow the taking of such lives.
[quote][b]And yes, religious thoughts ARE irrational if they are not based on observed and proven facts of reality, which is everything we can base our known facts on and what we can base any rational decisions on. In which case they would not actually even be religious thoughts really, at least not solely. Everything else is fictional/mythical.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
It is beyond my comprehension that humanity is capable of understanding everything either through observation or understanding. Because of this, it follows that rational thought, as you define it above, is incomplete, and is only as valid as the [i]assumptions[/i] its based upon.
I appreciate the honest discussion on this.
[B]Actually, as Hasdrubal infers later, they are comporable [i]if your morality allows that some people are different from others, and therefore have differnt or lesser rights[/i]. If one group is less than me, then I have a [i]right[/i] to enslave them. In fact, if they're nmot even human, I have a right to kill them.
[/b][/quote]
I believe you are taking Hasdrubal's comments without understanding their meaning. The question is at what point life begins. In this point of view there are widely varying arguments:
- Religious moralist believe life is created at point of conception
- Common society tends to place life to be created at the point of birth
- Pychological analysts will place the point of consciousness somewhere between 18 months and 3 years
Hasdrubal quite clearly points out that the basis of your argument Bobo is that you assume that life begins somewhere before birth. Otherwise your comparitive arguments seem outlandish. I believe that the proper point at which to define the beginning of a life is when that life is born and no longer dependent on another for their life. So long as you are unborn, you are dependent upon the mother (in the absence of technology to replace the functions of a mother). After you are born you are still a dependent, but you are no longer locked to the life and wellbeing of another as a result of biological development.
To take your argument that life begins before birth to an extremum, I could argue that since the being is alive, by them being trapped within the mother and required to be dependent upon the mother is an immorality and actually slavery of the embryo. Therefore the embryo must be removed and let grow on it's own, even in cases where there is insufficient technological machinery by which to keep the child alive.
Now to go the other way to claim that a child is no sentient until they are a couple years old. This harkens back to the days where infanticide was common.
Here is my opinion: Any choice as to abortion should only be made based on medical and support reasons. What I mean by support reasons is "can I support this child." I do not believe that an embryo should ever be aborted based on "it doesn't have green eyes" or "I wanted a boy instead of a girl."
[quote][b]
Yes, I do see the absurdity of the comparisons, but they are perfectly rational if the proper assumptions are made.[/b][/quote]
And these proper assumptions must be very specific assumptions which a great deal of people don't agree with. This is actually what my complaint is against, moreso then the issue of abortion, gay marrage, etc. I do not like other's belief's being forced down my throat. I embrace the right for others to have those beliefs, but I will fight for the right for everyone to have their own sets of beliefs. And so no picks this argument appart with the idea of murder, no actions undertaken within a belief set should be allowed to infringe upon any person and their property within any other belief set. This means if there is a belief set that believes in murder, so long as they only murder those who subscribe to that belief set I have no problem, but as soon as they murder someone in a belief set that does not believe in murder, we have a problem.
Our society as a whole believes that murder is wrong. Therefore we have laws against murder. However, half our society believes that abortions are not wrong. But the half that does wants to force their belief set upon the half that has no problem with abortions. This is where I cry foul.
as I said, the veracity of the data is in question but anecdotally, I'd believe it anyways...:)
theres a simple explanation for the increase in temperatures in the summer, and colder temperatures in the winter.
Cities.
cities = concrete
concrete = more extream temperatures.
in the summer, it's always about 10* F cooler at my house then it is in the city 20 miles away.
in the winter, eh, about the same.
but where are the temperature gauges used to measure the temp of the earth? IN CITIES.
so it's a no duh it's getting warmer, because theres so much concrete that is holding residual heat. take temps from the country, away from a city, and temps are consistant with those 100 years ago, if not a little cooler.
[B]but where are the temperature gauges used to measure the temp of the earth? IN CITIES. [/B][/QUOTE]
No they arn't. Certainly not all of them. I don't think there are any cities in places like the Artic or Antarctica, for a start. You generally find weather stations where official temperature readings are taken in large open spaces because they measure other things like humidity and wind speed too (they arn't just a thermometer on a wall). If you're interested, go and ask to see a local one (universities are good places to try) - they're rather interesting. Auckland's main weather measuring station is at Auckland International Airport surrounded by a large grass field, a 30 minute drive from the CBD. There are numourous other ones around the city in places like school fields and parks and university campuses.
Even if news stations may report temperatures that are often recorded in cities, scientists still use proper measuring equipment with methodology that has been developed over a long time. They don't watch the local news at night and make a note of the reported figures, and they also don't just rely on temperatures taken in urban areas, they use data from all over the world and in a huge number of locations ranging from mountains to valleys to urban areas to plains.
As for the difference in temperature between your house and the city 20 miles away, yes part of that would be due to the temperature characteristics of the materials urban buildings are made of, but part of it will also be due to the fact that you're 20 miles away. Weather patterns arn't just on a large scale.
I might point out that a recent article I read (a few months back) said that recent research has shown that the entire US is sinking. Why? Becuase the glaciers in northern Canada are melting. Since the North American continental plate is floating on the molten mantle of the planet, when the glaciers melt, the whole continent acts as a see-saw and canada rises as the US sinks. I seem to recall that the US is sinking by a matter of a few millimeters per year at this point, and that the rate of melting of the glaciers is increasing. As the US sinks, eventually (after tens or hundreds of years) costal areas will be underwater that were once well above water. The data for this was collected by satelite. This entire example shows one example of how global warming is effecting us in the United States.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]...[/B][/QUOTE]
[img]http://cagle.com/news/BushWins2004/images2/markstein3.gif[/img]
[img]http://cagle.com/news/BushWins2004/images/huffaker.gif[/img]
[img]http://cagle.com/news/BushWins2004/images2/lane.gif[/img]
[QUOTE]
[b]Scientists Find Arctic Warming Quickly[/b]
[i]By JOHN HEILPRIN[/i]
The Associated Press
Monday, November 8, 2004; 9:01 AM
WASHINGTON - Scientists say changes in the earth's climate from human influences are occurring particularly intensely in the Arctic region, evidenced by widespread melting of glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures.
A study released Monday said the annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased by about 8 percent in the past 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice - an area bigger than Texas and Arizona combined.
In the past half-century, average yearly temperatures in Alaska and Siberia rose by about 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit and winters in Alaska and western Canada warmed by an average of 5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit.
With "some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth," the Arctic regions' melting contributed to sea levels rising globally by an average of about three inches in the past 20 years, the report said.
"These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming," says the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study by 300 scientists in eight Arctic-bordering nations, including the United States.
This most comprehensive study of Arctic warming to date adds yet more impetus to the projections by many of the world's climate scientists that there will be a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.
It is based on ice core samples and other evidence of climate conditions such as on-the-ground and satellite measurements of surface air temperatures. Nations participating in the study besides the United States are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.
"The bottom line is that the Arctic is warming now, much more rapidly than the rest of the globe, and it's impacting people directly," Robert Corell, chairman of the scientists' study panel and a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society, said Sunday.
The process is only likely to accelerate in the Arctic, a region that provides important resources such as oil, gas and fish, the study finds.
That would wreak havoc on polar bears, ice-dependent seals, caribou and reindeer herds - and local people such as Inuit whose main food source comes from hunting those animals. Some endangered migratory birds are projected to lose more than half their breeding areas.
The study projects that in the next 100 years the yearly average temperatures will increase by 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit over land and 13 to 18 degrees over the ocean, mainly because the water absorbs more heat.
Forests would expand into the Arctic tundra, which in turn would expand into the polar ice deserts, because rising temperatures would favor taller, denser vegetation. The areas of Arctic tundra would shrink to their smallest extent since 21,000 years ago when, humans began emerging from the last Ice Age.
"It's happening much more quickly than we had anticipated as recently as five years ago, and it has global implications due to the opening of the Arctic sea ice, providing for new marine transportation routes," said Corell, who from 1986 to 2000 headed a roughly $2 billion-a-year U.S. research program into climate and other global environmental changes.
Since it takes decades if not centuries to reverse warming from carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, some damage is inevitable, though longer-term impacts could be "reduced significantly" by cutting emissions globally this century, the study says.
Sea levels globally already are expected to rise between another four inches to three feet or more this century. Longer term, if temperatures continue to rise unabated, in the range of 5 degrees to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next several centuries, sea levels would rise alarmingly.
In that scenario, the study projects "a virtually complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet," which would contribute as much as 23 feet to the world's sea level rise.
---
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[url]http://www.acia.uaf.edu[/url]
© 2004 The Associated Press[/QUOTE]
Both sides can produce data showing that they are right. This means we need better data. But whatever properly collected information we get will probably show change, because the Earth is always changing. Always has, always will. Personally, I think we should wait until most of the scientific community can come to a consensus before we enter into something as restrictive as Kyoto. Also, any such agreement must be fair to all parties involved. However, I don't like pollution either, so perhaps we in the US should try to clean up our act. I would be satisfied with something between California's level of restriction, and what the rest of the country has now.
The real question to me, is dare we try to hold the Earth in its current state, if natural forces push it to change? How many mass extinctions have there been in the Earth's history? I can only think of two, the Cambrian and the one that got the dinosaurs, but were there more? And wasn't there a volcanic eruption a few years back in the Phillipines that released more CO2 than the entire industrial history of Man?
The point is this. We don't really understand the forces at work. We should. However, to even try and hold things as they are now, could be considered trying to play God as much as trashing and polluting the planet. So instead of frantically trying to fix every problem we see, real or imagined, we should be frantically trying to understand the level of damage we might cause in intervention. After all, some climate models predict a near-term ice age. And ask yourselves. Do we really want to terraform..... Terra?
From what I have seen the Earth cleans itself. The problem right now is it can't clean as fast as we are emitting. Therefore we need to reduce OUR (non-natural) emissions so that the Earth can clean itself.
I would hope that the people on this board shut down their computer at night and turn of lights and TV’s when not in use. Turn the thermostat down by 2 or 4 degrees. I would hope they walk rather than drive the five blocks to the grocery story or mailbox. I would hope that people recycle and reuse as much as they can. Purchase meat, fruits, and vegetables in minimal packaging rather than over packed processed foods and carry the food home in re-used cloth bags.
The sad thing is most of the people who point fingers and lay blame so quickly are GUITLY of raping the planet themselves.
(No, I'm not claiming to be perfect.)
If we could pluck out California and chuck it into space I think the USA numbers would improve dramatically! :D :p
I agree - a society that watches what they do is much better. If only industry would adopt that standard too... I dislike regulations of that sort, but when they clearly flout common sense in favor of greed someone has to knock sense into them.
[B]I believe you are taking Hasdrubal's comments without understanding their meaning.
[/b][/quote]
Actually, I understood his meaning, but apparently did a poor job in conveying mine. :(
The (attempted) point was that one relativistic ethical view is no better than another. This has obvious implications to the abortion discussion, but that was not my main intent.
Consider your closing paragraph:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]Our society as a whole believes that murder is wrong. Therefore we have laws against murder. However, half our society believes that abortions are not wrong. But the half that does wants to force their belief set upon the half that has no problem with abortions. [i]This is where I cry foul[/i].[/B][/QUOTE]
To the group that considers life to begin at conception, there is no difference between the two choices you present. Again, to exagerate the point, their interpretation of the above is:
[QUOTE]Our society as a whole believes that murder is wrong. Therefore we have laws against murder. However, half our society believes that the murdering of children is not wrong. [/QUOTE]
In the same way, the second group would take issue to leaving an infant outside to allow it to die, a common enough practice in Roman times, where the view was similar to the third group you identified.
Once more, my point is not about abortion, but that claiming a relativistic ethical view is superior to a religious one leads to many contradictions. Consider another point you made:
[quote]I believe that the proper point at which to define the beginning of a life is when that life is born and no longer dependent on another for their life.[/quote]
Under this definition, any child less than 12 months is not a live, since leaving such a child alone would lead to their eventual death. Additionally, many adults with mental or physical handicaps could be considered dependent on another for their food, shelter, and companionship, so by this definition, they are not alive.
I'm not saying you believe these things; please don't take it that way. I'm merely pointing out that any relativistic morality will eventually lead to contradictions.
[quote][i]Originally brilliantly stated by Konrad[/i]
[b]I would hope that the people on this board shut down their computer at night and turn of lights and TV’s when not in use. Turn the thermostat down by 2 or 4 degrees. I would hope they walk rather than drive the five blocks to the grocery story or mailbox. I would hope that people recycle and reuse as much as they can. Purchase meat, fruits, and vegetables in minimal packaging rather than over packed processed foods and carry the food home in re-used cloth bags.[/b][/quote]
Computer check...lights check...AC check...driving, nope to far out of town...recycle, check...packaging, hmm, I could do better there...bags, I recycle the plastic ones, so check. Looking good :D
[img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1586096_zoom.jpg[/img]
more:
[img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/06_vision.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1484268_zoom.jpg[/img]
A rather strong image, but totally incorrect. It ain't the book that's the enemy. ;)
It's the faulty self-serving interpretations of it that are a dime-a-dozen (once again, mere people with twisted agendas).
There's the enemy. ;)
I'd take that book over the invisible entity wielding that knife...
[B][IMG]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1484268_zoom.jpg[/IMG]
A rather strong image, but totally incorrect. It ain't the book that's the enemy. ;)
It's the faulty self-serving interpretations of it that are a dime-a-dozen (once again, mere people with twisted agendas).
There's the enemy. ;)
I'd take that book over the invisible entity wielding that knife... [/B][/QUOTE]
I know the book isnt, but it gets a point accross.
Anyway... I know its Remixed War Propaganda, Is it based on German or Allie Propaganda?
[B]Actually, I understood his meaning, but apparently did a poor job in conveying mine. :([/b][/quote]
More likely our views are so different I didn't see how you picked up what you did from Hasdrubal's argument.
[QUOTE][B]Under this definition, any child less than 12 months is not a live, since leaving such a child alone would lead to their eventual death. Additionally, many adults with mental or physical handicaps could be considered dependent on another for their food, shelter, and companionship, so by this definition, they are not alive.[/B][/QUOTE]
Clarification:
Actually that was my 3rd definition. My 2nd definition is when one is no longer dependent on the original mother, excluding machinery. This means that some other human can replace the mother at that point without the aid of machinery and technology. Thus this is the point of birth, not the point that you mentioned is 12 months later.
-----------
More importantly this entire discussion brings up why this issue will never be solved in the near term in our society: there are two opposing positions that have no commonality in beliefs and thus have no reference from which to see each other's beliefs.
--RC
[B]A rather strong image, but totally incorrect. It ain't the book that's the enemy. ;)
It's the faulty self-serving interpretations of it that are a dime-a-dozen (once again, mere people with twisted agendas).
There's the enemy. ;)
I'd take that book over the invisible entity wielding that knife... [/B][/QUOTE]
And we have been and still are as guilty of these self-serving interpretations as are our enemies.
[B][img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1586109_zoom.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1586096_zoom.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1484268_zoom.jpg[/img] [/B][/QUOTE]
These types of war propaganda are nothing new. What is new is the fact that it isn't our enemies putting out this type of propaganda...it is our allies, our freinds, and our citizens.
This to me clearly says there is something wrong with the entire way the US has gone in the last 4 years. Unfortunately the people of our great nation have yet to wake up to this fact.
[B]Clarification:
Actually that was my 3rd definition. My 2nd definition is when one is no longer dependent on the original mother, excluding machinery. This means that some other human can replace the mother at that point without the aid of machinery and technology. Thus this is the point of birth, not the point that you mentioned is 12 months later.[/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting...
I'm a Christian in faith, and yet I don't believe that abortion is murder. I think it is a sin in the respect that it can be abused for the purpose of birth control.
I'm sure I'll burn in Hell in the minds of many here and elsewhere, but here it goes.
_____
Strictly speaking from a theological standpoint (all you evolutionists, etc will have to sit this one out ;) ), I don't hold to the idea that some of the verses in the Bible that are used to say it is murder and a sin hold very well.
The common one that is used quite often is the one in the psalms where God knew the person in the womb and what that child would become.
This speaks to a whole different theological point that I won't go into here about Gods Omniscience and the theory of pre-destiny.
I have yet to see ANYONE point out a verse that specifically calls abortion murder. I welcome that day, as it would make a pointed difference in my outlook on it.
If we are to draw corelations between the story of creation, and the continuing saga of birth and death in the human story from a standpoint of faith, we see God create Adam from the dust of the Earth, formed in his image, yet not alive until God BREATHED the breath of life into Adam. Once Adam could maintain the cycle of life on his own, he was then alive.
A child is formed in our image in the womb, and depends upon it's host (mom), until birth and the first breath of air when it cries. Therefor to me, life begins at birth with the first breath of air.
_____
I'm sure that someone will stand up here at this point and bring up the killing of male children of 1 year old or less in Egypt to prevent Moses from coming into existence, but I still haven't seen exact language about those inthe womb.
I invite provable correction in this regard... ;)
_____
BTW, on another note (once again a point of interpretation)... The Ten Commandment's doesn't include "Thou Shalt Not Kill...", it says "Thou Shalt Not Murder." There is a difference.
Christian or not, someone threatens the life or limb of me or my wife and family, don't think for one second that that persons life wouldn't be on the chopping block wholesale... ;)
[B][img]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cathy.chad.simmonds/Reaver4k/Images/1586096_zoom.jpg[/img][/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that explains why he isn't worried about global warming.
[B]And wasn't there a volcanic eruption a few years back in the Phillipines that released more CO2 than the entire industrial history of Man?[/B][/QUOTE]Wrong amount of annual CO2 emissions from Volcanoes is miniscule compared to mankinds emissions.
And actually bigger eruptions cause colder weather. (mean temperature of year after Pinatubo's eruption was colder than normal)
"Supervolcano" Toba which is like Yellowstone nearly exterminated mankind when erupting about 70 000 years ago.
[B]...Turn the thermostat down by 2 or 4 degrees.[/B][/QUOTE]I don't think that's necessary, temperature of my bedroom is already about 15 C. :D
Althought it wouldn't make any difference if it would be more than that, we have central heating system using firewoods.
(burning wood doesn't add any new CO2 to circulation, unlike burning fossil fuels)
Energy required for heating could be significantly reduced in many countries by building better insulated houses.
Actually there's also other advantage from couple degrees colder room temperature, because amount of dust mites "explodes" after certain temperature, which is near 25 C.
[img]http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/media/e/eb/house_dust_mite.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/dust+mite[/url]
[url]http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/video/mite.html[/url]