Nurse Maria Issues Advisory on Medical Manslaughter Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I guess an echo (when you're talking to yourself, no less) is comforting to some...:think:

Sidestepping what's happened on this thread may be convenient, Bob, and regurgitating what you already posted may save you time, but it's still the same intellectual cheapness as before. Some things never change.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Granite said:
I guess an echo (when you're talking to yourself, no less) is comforting to some...:think:

Sidestepping what's happened on this thread may be convenient, Bob, and regurgitating what you already posted may save you time, but it's still the same intellectual cheapness as before. Some things never change.
Man, there's some classic Granite. Impervious to any line of good logic, and freaking out with righteous indignation about a point not even raised.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Granite said:
I don't consider a blastocyst a "baby," but I oppose the destruction of that life.

Yorzhik said:
Man, there's some classic Granite. Impervious to any line of good logic, and freaking out with righteous indignation about a point not even raised.

I know. Granite is opposed to killing a blastocyst, but he doesn't think it is a baby. Weird.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
A.P.B. for Granite! Calling all cars, calling all cars, be on the lookout for...

A.P.B. for Granite! Calling all cars, calling all cars, be on the lookout for...

Granite, consider this an official alert. I'm about to remind our KGOV audience (with an update to the show summary for Aug. 14) that you have not yet responded to my comments, just above, which are critical of your claims.

-Bob Enyart
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Granite said:
I don't consider a blastocyst a "baby," but I oppose the destruction of that life.
Does this mean that your position has changed? Does this mean that you now oppose the use of hormonal "birth control" which, when failing to prevent ovulation, causes the destruction of such lives?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Bob Enyart said:
Granite, consider this an official alert. I'm about to remind our KGOV audience (with an update to the show summary for Aug. 14) that you have not yet responded to my comments, just above, which are critical of your claims.

-Bob Enyart

Yes I did, Bob. But since by your own admission you haven't kept up with the entirety of this thread you may have overlooked it.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Turbo said:
Does this mean that your position has changed? Does this mean that you now oppose the use of hormonal "birth control" which, when failing to prevent ovulation, causes the destruction of such lives?

I guess erring on the side of caution, whenever possible, is the best way to sum up my position. While I wouldn't consider a blastocyst in the running for "personhood" I don't think it's a good idea to screw, tamper with, or unnecessarily interfere with its development. Leave well enough alone...unless or until it's not well enough. Hope that makes sense.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Obfuscation is not the high road to protecting life

Obfuscation is not the high road to protecting life

Granite,

There is no need to confuse the simple matter of what makes a living human being by implying that destroying or discarding some cells (like tonsils, trophoblast, etc.) equates to destroying the entire human.

And yes Granite, err on the side of caution! That is the loving path when it comes to human life. But the question of when a unique human life comes into existence is not in doubt biologically, and when someone obfuscates that fundamental issue, they are playing with fire.

Now, I've gone back and read the remainder of your posts, and you have not yet responded to my criticism of your argument (although, along with Turbo, I'm glad to see the direction your argument is headed).

Not that you have any obligation, but if you want to, feel free to respond to my criticism of your comments in my post just above. Suggestion: You could say: Bob, good point, I wrongly over-stated the case when I said that a human blastocyst "doesn't resemble anything 'human' in any way, shape, or form."

Thanks, -Bob Enyart
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Bob Enyart said:
Granite,

There is no need to confuse the simple matter of what makes a living human being by implying that destroying or discarding some cells (like tonsils, trophoblast, etc.) equates to destroying the entire human.

And yes Granite, err on the side of caution! That is the loving path when it comes to human life. But the question of when a unique human life comes into existence is not in doubt biologically, and when someone obfuscates that fundamental issue, they are playing with fire.

Now, I've gone back and read the remainder of your posts, and you have not yet responded to my criticism of your argument (although, along with Turbo, I'm glad to see the direction your argument is headed).

Not that you have any obligation, but if you want to, feel free to respond to my criticism of your comments in my post just above. Suggestion: You could say: Bob, good point, I wrongly over-stated the case when I said that a human blastocyst "doesn't resemble anything 'human' in any way, shape, or form."

Thanks, -Bob Enyart

Human life and human personhood, I would submit, are not identical. I think that's really what our fundamental disagreement is about. I don't doubt life begins at conception--at a basic level, who does--but the pro-life movement seems to make much more of that statement than I would. I don't see that as obfuscation, I see it as a distinction. How important is that distinction? I suppose it depends. Do I think a blastocyst is a "person"? No. Do I support abortion because of that? No, I don't.

You're right, I did phrase my statement incorrectly. I should have said: "A blastocyst does not in my book resemble a person in any way, shape, or form."

Not sure if that'll annoy you just as much. I'll take my chances.:cheers:
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Granite, thanks. We're making progress.

I just wish I didn't have to rush out right now to meet a Denver pastor, Ron Fox, for a theology discussion over lunch. (Actually, I'll love the meeting, but I don't know when to find the time to get back to this thread.. :( .

-Bob Enyart
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Turbo said:
Does this mean that your position has changed? Does this mean that you now oppose the use of hormonal "birth control" which, when failing to prevent ovulation, causes the destruction of such lives?

Granite said:
I guess erring on the side of caution, whenever possible, is the best way to sum up my position. While I wouldn't consider a blastocyst in the running for "personhood" I don't think it's a good idea to screw, tamper with, or unnecessarily interfere with its development. Leave well enough alone...unless or until it's not well enough. Hope that makes sense.

Is that a "yes" to each of my questions? If so, :thumb:
 

jhodgeiii

New member
Granite said:
Human life and human personhood, I would submit, are not identical. I think that's really what our fundamental disagreement is about. I don't doubt life begins at conception--at a basic level, who does--but the pro-life movement seems to make much more of that statement than I would.
Human life and human personhood certainly can be identical (one of the medical doctors from one of Shimei's links above testifed: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.")

Perhaps the problem that pro-lifers have with your insistence of a distinction between life and personhood is that making such a distinction tends to strip away human value as you go back toward conception. Thus, it can be reckoned that killing a blastocyst is not as bad as killing a fetus; killing a fetus is not as bad as killing a newborn baby, etc. No one can draw any line because personhood has no clear definition!

I don't see that as obfuscation.
By definition it's obfuscation being that you injected personhood as a relevant distinction, yet personhood has no clear, objective meaning.

All in all, I'm happy to hear that you're against abortion, but there's no reason to give pro-aborts a wild card to justify their immorality.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Pain and Sentinence are Knowledge Based, and Knowledge is Not Physical

Pain and Sentinence are Knowledge Based, and Knowledge is Not Physical

Granite, I appreciate you talking through this with us, and it has opened the door for me to take the discussion a bit further.

You wrote: "Human life and human personhood, I would submit, are not identical."

If a doctor scrapes cells from a patient’s mouth, and they remain living for a time, we could say that is an example of human life. So, personhood and life are not identical, as you say, in such circumstances, although in normal discussion, we speak of a human life and a person interchangeably, as synonyms.

I don’t know you or the position you hold very well. [Although it grieves me that you describe yourself as a Satanist, since only Jesus Christ can forgive you of your sins.] But it seems that you had been drawing a line for personhood at implantation. But surely, even by the argument you had presented, that is arbitrary, because at the moment of implantation, the embryo, by your standard, still wouldn't resemble your prerequisites for personhood (although in reality it does). You have been pushed down this road of making a distinction where we typically don’t need to make one, between human life and personhood, because you’re wrestling with understanding when does a human being, a person, come into existence, and you had been trying to defend that arbitrary threshold of implantation. That’s why you introduced the distraction of the trophoblast (discarding some cells, like tonsils, is not the same as destroying the entire human, so the fact that the embryo does not incorporate trophoblast cells, which become the placenta, is not relevant to the question of personhood, but is only obfuscation).

Then you wrote, “A blastocyst does not in my book resemble a person in any way, shape, or form," clarifying your earlier claim that he or she has “No sentience, no ability to feel pain, nothing recognizably human.”

I just referred to the blastocyst as he or she because we know that his or her gender and countless other particulars are already set, at fertilization, and only await expression.

Your claims of what the blastocyst cannot do have overreached your understanding. Sentience, i.e. awareness, does not come from our physical existence, but from our soul. How do I know this? Because knowledge is NOT physical. Knowledge, in this case, knowing that I exist, is not material, it is not physical, but something else. We have words for things that are not physical, like spirit, and soul. At the moment of fertilization, a unique, living, human being comes into existence, and it does not need to wait for its brain to be wired to acquire sentience, because no configuration of matter, regardless of how complex, can instill non-material ability to that matter.

Also, pain is not physical. Plants do not have souls (which are non-material), and when you chop down a tree, it does not feel pain (a 60s sci-fi episode not withstanding). Pain is comprehension, it is knowledge, and knowledge is not physical. Granite, you assumed that a blastocyst cannot feel pain because it’s physical configuration has not developed sufficiently to register pain. First, the DNA in our human cells, including in the blastocyst, is the most complex arrangement of matter known in the universe, sufficiently complex to assemble the human brain, which is the second-most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Thus, the blastocyst is not incapable of feeling pain because it lacks sufficient physical complexity. Secondly, you overlooked the fact that awareness of pain requires awareness, and awareness is knowledge, and not a physical attribute. Whether you reject Scripture or not, Christians have the benefit of its wisdom. And so we know that at the moment of fertilization, the pro-created, unique, living human being is alive to God. I don’t mean alive in that God sees a living cell, as He could do with biopsy cells. Rather, the genetically complete, new human life is itself aware of God. It is alive to God. And by the way, before the embryo implants, even as it is coming down the fallopian tube, it cries out to its mother (actually, physically, with a hormonal cry), saying I’m hungry, asking mom to get ready to feed the little one, so that she can make preparations to feed him, and to receive her baby into his home for the next nine months!

Regarding an inability to feel pain, when a doctor cuts in our brain matter, we do not feel pain from that. It would be wrong to kill an injured person who has passed out, or who we assume just can’t feel pain. Pain is non-physical, it is awareness, which is a state of knowledge. You can program a robot to back up suddenly if it bumps into a wall, and even to yell, “Ouch.” But it hasn’t felt pain, because it is only made of atoms and molecules, and can have no awareness. Because pain is inherently non-physical, pain resulting from non-physical causes is dramatically more hurtful than pain resulting from physical stimuli. A paper cut on the eyeball really hurts. A father who will not look his disowned son in the eye is far more painful. Perhaps if you have been abandoned by your parents, you might be able to know the pain felt by the little one who is purposefully rejected by his mother, intentionally killed, by a chemical weapon, the Morning After Abortion Pill, because she didn’t have the time to love him. She called it Plan B. Her dismissal (and yours), of the little one’s ability to feel pain will do little to alleviate it.

Granite, you wrote, “I don't doubt life begins at conception--at a basic level, who does…”

Yes, life begins at conception. And I know you mean that it begins at that blast of life that we call fertilization. And you are right. The abortionists are wrong. But that’s not only the science, it is the moment of truth, in that twinkling of an eye, where each of us decides, whether to honor God who so wonderfully made us, or to disobey him, and to justify the unthinkable, and to swing open the doors of the slaughterhouse.

-Bob Enyart
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Hi Bob, thanks for engaging!

As an aside, I'd ask you as a personal favor to refrain from mentioning Jesus or what he can do for me; I am not ignorant of Christian theology, I can assure you, and it's a waste of time trying to evangelize me even in passing. Appreciate it.

Moving on...I don't "draw the line for personhood at implanation." Not AT implantation itself, but FOLLOWING it. It's essentially the other side of a paranthesis, if that makes sense. Also, I'm familiar with your insistence that awareness comes from the "soul." Now as a Christian this is really the one and only card you need to play (or can play, for that matter). Is knowledge physical? Its expression can be. Does that come from a "soul" or "spirit" of some kind? I would say: not necessarily. Now I'm familiar with where you take the conversation from that point, but to me, even IF our sentience comes from a "soul" of some kind, a Judeo-Christian deity isn't necessary to explain the existence of a soul. (I'd also really appreciate it if you dropped the patronizing attitude that leaks through your posts despite your best efforts; you can tell other people what they have "over reached" all day long on your program, but that racket will not work with me.) "Sentience comes from our soul" is a statement that is proposterous on its face unless or until you submit it with a religious or spiritual setting. It is a presupposition pure and simple. Neurology and psychology submit alternate explanations for self-identity, self-awareness, sentience, and the like; a "soul" isn't necessary with the biblical presuppositions you and others bring to the picture when addressing what constitutes humanity and personhood.

Pain can be quite physical, your gnostic argument against it to the contrary. Nociception has nothing to do with emotion or psychological trauma--it is nerve damage pure and simple. Once again, you fall back on your self-constructed presupposition but that's no more than a cute trick. Once you have assumed that "knowledge is not physical" anything else you say "can be" hypothetically or theoretically true--but all of this "accuracy" is predicated on the assumption of your presupposition. Convenient and circular. Since you dismiss nociception and the very real existence of purely physical pain you fall back on the presupposition that pain cannot be physical because it is based on our knowledge. "Pain is non-physical" is simply inaccurate: it CAN be physical, it CAN be psychological, or it CAN be non-physical (i.e., an aching "phantom limb" as documented amongst amputees) would be an accurate way of phrasing it. This is not an either/or all or nothing black/white proposition. Your presupposition makes it so, however. "Knowledge is not physical; our knowledge comes from our soul; our soul comes from God" is the whole of your argument. Everything else follows.

I, for one, am not interested in arguing presuppositionalism. Been there, done that. You can declare victory before starting the battle all day long. So can I. Not much profit comes from that.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Granite: "Moving on...I don't 'draw the line for personhood at implanation.' Not AT implantation itself, but FOLLOWING it."

[Hey Turbo, things are worse than we thought here.]

Granite, here, you dodged my irrefragable point that knowledge is NOT physical. You say it's "expression" can be, but that's a dodge, and an inherent admission to the irrefutable point that knowledge is NOT physical. (Denying this is similar to denying any similarity between a blastocyst and a human, and we've already seen a u-turn on that one.)

Granite: "Is knowledge physical? Its expression can be."

Granite, I really won't have the time to proceed unless you admit that knowledge is NOT physical. Yes, the expression of information can be done physically. And we can convey knowledge and demonstrate it physically. But Knowledge itself is not physical. And neither are the laws of logic. So, if you're going to limit yourself to being a strict materialist, move over Morphy, Jukia, and Johnny, because you'll start distancing yourself from everything non-physical, including knowledge, reason, and logic.

By the way, information is not physical either. And yes, information can be expressed physically. Let me demonstrate by the laws of physics. Other than light itself (an electro-magnetic transmission), we humans cannot transport anything at the speed of light, yet we send terabytes of data over fiber optic signals at the speed of light. Information goes from one location to another, but the MATTER (pixels in a scanned photo, etc.) did not themselves travel at the speed of light across the ocean and re-assemble themselves. No, information is not physical. The laws of logic are not physical. Knowledge (awareness of information) is not physical.

Granite: "Neurology and psychology submit alternate explanations for... self-awareness..."

Psychologist? Neurologists? They have that? If so, they're keeping it a secret! Why don't they publish and win a Nobel prize? Granite, if you know that they have explained how inanimate atoms and molecules gain self-awareness, you should explain that to us. They don't have a clue, not a foggy notion, not a vague idea of how a collection of electrons and protons could begin to become aware of themselves.

Granite: "Pain can be quite physical... it is nerve damage pure and simple."

Your use of big words to the contrary (nociception modality), nerve damage is not translated into pain until it is understood as pain by the sentient creature. Behead a man and then stab his torso, and there is no pain. Injuries have rendered countless limbs sensationless, and you can grind up the nerves in such an appendage without generating pain. Understanding pain is like understanding value, and the economist is right that value lies in the eyes of the beholder, as does pain. Pain is awareness.

Now, if you think you can demonstrate that knowledge is physical, you should try to do so, right here in this thread if you'd like. It might help you realize that knowledge is not physical.

If you will unequivocally agree that Knowledge is NOT physical, I'd like to continue (time permitting). If not, I see no way to proceed.

Thanks,

-Bob Enyart
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"Time" has nothing to do with it, Bob, and you know it. You're more than willing to make time for discussions you think you can "win" or discussions that are met on your terms. That's why you made a point to ignore what I said about your presuppositionalism.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Granite writes: "Time" has nothing to do with it, Bob, and you know it.

I'm not doing *live* radio shows, Granite, for two and a half weeks because of travel for my family vacation, and other commitments. Time does have something to do with it. And when I'm doing live shows, I have *plenty* of time on air, M-F, between 5 and 7 pm, so anyone can make their killer arguments on the air then. I probably gave fool 70 minutes of airtime last time he had an argument to make.

And Granite writes: "...you made a point to ignore what I said about your presuppositionalism."

If I were making a "presuppositional" argument on knowledge not being physical, I wouldn't have provided evidence. I made the argument that knowledge is not physical. And I challenged you to demonstrate that knowledge is physical, so that out of an inability to do so, you'll have a chance of realizing the obvious: that knowledge (including awareness) is NOT physical.

Now, I am SURE that I won't have time for any other trivial distractions. But if you substantively respond to my challenge, I hope to have the time for it.

Specifically:

"If you think you can demonstrate that knowledge is physical, you should try to do so, right here in this thread if you'd like. It might help you realize that knowledge is not physical.

If you will unequivocally agree that Knowledge is NOT physical, I'd like to continue (time permitting). If not, I see no way to proceed."


Thanks,

-Bob Enyart
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Bob Enyart said:
Granite, I appreciate you talking through this with us, and it has opened the door for me to take the discussion a bit further.

You wrote: "Human life and human personhood, I would submit, are not identical."

If a doctor scrapes cells from a patient’s mouth, and they remain living for a time, we could say that is an example of human life. So, personhood and life are not identical, as you say, in such circumstances, although in normal discussion, we speak of a human life and a person interchangeably, as synonyms.

I don’t know you or the position you hold very well. [Although it grieves me that you describe yourself as a Satanist, since only Jesus Christ can forgive you of your sins.] But it seems that you had been drawing a line for personhood at implantation. But surely, even by the argument you had presented, that is arbitrary, because at the moment of implantation, the embryo, by your standard, still wouldn't resemble your prerequisites for personhood (although in reality it does). You have been pushed down this road of making a distinction where we typically don’t need to make one, between human life and personhood, because you’re wrestling with understanding when does a human being, a person, come into existence, and you had been trying to defend that arbitrary threshold of implantation. That’s why you introduced the distraction of the trophoblast (discarding some cells, like tonsils, is not the same as destroying the entire human, so the fact that the embryo does not incorporate trophoblast cells, which become the placenta, is not relevant to the question of personhood, but is only obfuscation).

Then you wrote, “A blastocyst does not in my book resemble a person in any way, shape, or form," clarifying your earlier claim that he or she has “No sentience, no ability to feel pain, nothing recognizably human.”

I just referred to the blastocyst as he or she because we know that his or her gender and countless other particulars are already set, at fertilization, and only await expression.

Your claims of what the blastocyst cannot do have overreached your understanding. Sentience, i.e. awareness, does not come from our physical existence, but from our soul. How do I know this? Because knowledge is NOT physical. Knowledge, in this case, knowing that I exist, is not material, it is not physical, but something else. We have words for things that are not physical, like spirit, and soul. At the moment of fertilization, a unique, living, human being comes into existence, and it does not need to wait for its brain to be wired to acquire sentience, because no configuration of matter, regardless of how complex, can instill non-material ability to that matter.

Also, pain is not physical. Plants do not have souls (which are non-material), and when you chop down a tree, it does not feel pain (a 60s sci-fi episode not withstanding). Pain is comprehension, it is knowledge, and knowledge is not physical. Granite, you assumed that a blastocyst cannot feel pain because it’s physical configuration has not developed sufficiently to register pain. First, the DNA in our human cells, including in the blastocyst, is the most complex arrangement of matter known in the universe, sufficiently complex to assemble the human brain, which is the second-most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Thus, the blastocyst is not incapable of feeling pain because it lacks sufficient physical complexity. Secondly, you overlooked the fact that awareness of pain requires awareness, and awareness is knowledge, and not a physical attribute. Whether you reject Scripture or not, Christians have the benefit of its wisdom. And so we know that at the moment of fertilization, the pro-created, unique, living human being is alive to God. I don’t mean alive in that God sees a living cell, as He could do with biopsy cells. Rather, the genetically complete, new human life is itself aware of God. It is alive to God. And by the way, before the embryo implants, even as it is coming down the fallopian tube, it cries out to its mother (actually, physically, with a hormonal cry), saying I’m hungry, asking mom to get ready to feed the little one, so that she can make preparations to feed him, and to receive her baby into his home for the next nine months!

Regarding an inability to feel pain, when a doctor cuts in our brain matter, we do not feel pain from that. It would be wrong to kill an injured person who has passed out, or who we assume just can’t feel pain. Pain is non-physical, it is awareness, which is a state of knowledge. You can program a robot to back up suddenly if it bumps into a wall, and even to yell, “Ouch.” But it hasn’t felt pain, because it is only made of atoms and molecules, and can have no awareness. Because pain is inherently non-physical, pain resulting from non-physical causes is dramatically more hurtful than pain resulting from physical stimuli. A paper cut on the eyeball really hurts. A father who will not look his disowned son in the eye is far more painful. Perhaps if you have been abandoned by your parents, you might be able to know the pain felt by the little one who is purposefully rejected by his mother, intentionally killed, by a chemical weapon, the Morning After Abortion Pill, because she didn’t have the time to love him. She called it Plan B. Her dismissal (and yours), of the little one’s ability to feel pain will do little to alleviate it.

Granite, you wrote, “I don't doubt life begins at conception--at a basic level, who does…”

Yes, life begins at conception. And I know you mean that it begins at that blast of life that we call fertilization. And you are right. The abortionists are wrong. But that’s not only the science, it is the moment of truth, in that twinkling of an eye, where each of us decides, whether to honor God who so wonderfully made us, or to disobey him, and to justify the unthinkable, and to swing open the doors of the slaughterhouse.

-Bob Enyart


:first: POTD!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top