Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Charles Lindsey

Some pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control pills

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

. But the point im trying to make, that our friend Wolfheart was so adept at missing, is that ultimatly the beginning of a human is when the sperm enters the egg... I dont see how that has to do with any of my "holy books" seeing as how I didnt even base my argument on the bible but on science.

Science is also a system based on certain beliefs but lets not get there..Im not missing anything,I see your point and I disagree because if we are to strictly follow human(I dont mean humanity,I mean *one* human) life cycle we'll see it goes back to eternity(if we dont confuse ourselves with books which thinks otherwise).What I dont get is you follow humans life cycle to "sperm enters egg" but the same you for some strange reason stop there,because that "person" exist in sperm and egg before they meet each other,I dont think there is any magic in fertilization;if we follow "strict logic" we should find out that its just a period in human life.Of course thinking that way would be disasterous in practical issues,so we should find a practical(doesnt need to be perfect) solution.And I think the best solution would be to say we are human after were born(again I know its not perfect but its better than chasing shadows).

Though I know why you wont understand me .Its because as much as you try to think scientifically,you will still have concepts like "first,beginning" while my thoughts are based on the argument "life goes back to forever".Hence my referance to your holy book.

quote:

Im saying the beginning of the HUMAN LIFE CYCLE is when the sperm enters the egg how hard is that to understand?


No its not hard to understand,its just illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfheart

Science is also a system based on certain beliefs but lets not get there..Im not missing anything,I see your point and I disagree because if we are to strictly follow human(I dont mean humanity,I mean *one* human) life cycle we'll see it goes back to eternity(if we dont confuse ourselves with books which thinks otherwise).What I dont get is you follow humans life cycle to "sperm enters egg" but the same you for some strange reason stop there,because that "person" exist in sperm and egg before they meet each other,I dont think there is any magic in fertilization;if we follow "strict logic" we should find out that its just a period in human life.Of course thinking that way would be disasterous in practical issues,so we should find a practical(doesnt need to be perfect) solution.And I think the best solution would be to say we are human after were born(again I know its not perfect but its better than chasing shadows).

Though I know why you wont understand me .Its because as much as you try to think scientifically,you will still have concepts like "first,beginning" while my thoughts are based on the argument "life goes back to forever".Hence my referance to your holy book.


yes yes I know life goes back to when God created everything, but im talking about one human now not all humans across history

Since you seem to belive in destiny(I belive in free will but apparently God knows all the choices we will make so perhaps we do have a destiny in a sense) so I will change my argument to the "physical human life cycle"

Here is my logic:

the egg and sperm are just two halves of a new whole. Its only the genetic information that comes togeather like if you had a blueprint and it was cut in half...

If the two halves come togeather then the "physical" human life cycle is set in motion because the mother's body builds off of that "blueprint"

isnt that the same for anything else that reproduces sexually? the only difference being animals that lay eggs since their yoke has all that is required to "build off the blueprint" once it is fertilized

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

yes yes I know life goes back to when God created everything, but im talking about one human now not all humans across history

Since you seem to belive in destiny(I belive in free will but apparently God knows all the choices we will make so perhaps we do have a destiny in a sense) so I will change my argument to the "physical human life cycle"

Here is my logic:

the egg and sperm are just two halves of a new whole. Its only the genetic information that comes togeather like if you had a blueprint and it was cut in half...

If the two halves come togeather then the "physical" human life cycle is set in motion because the mother's body builds off of that "blueprint"

isnt that the same for anything else that reproduces sexually? the only difference being animals that lay eggs since their yoke has all that is required to "build off the blueprint" once it is fertilized

I apologise for my bad english ,I guess I somehow managed to mess things up .When I said forever and eternity I meant infinity-in a mathmatical sense.So my theory is that there is no creator and all "things" have always existed-but by continously changing form- from infinity.This includes all material that comes together to form us.So I say if we define human by the pieces which make them then we should say everybody have always existed.And my conclusion is that we need a more practical way of defining humans to use in laws,etc.. than going with strict logic.

What I dont get is why you dont think of those "blueprints" as humans when you can say a one celled living is human .

OT:Its a really interesting coincidence that you think I belive in destiny,because a few other people also find some of my ideas(though materialist in nature) similar to destiny concept in holy books.

I hope we understand each other more clearly this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfheart I have this theory that all true knowledge is equal in the sense that if two people think about a certain thing long enough that eventually they will both come to the same conclusion

(also this keeps me from being vain and going to an expensive college hehe because 1+1=2 is the same thing anywhere so why pay more for the same thing)

heh interesting how we began this conversation with birth control pills and now we are talking about evolution and eternity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nomad:First of all I must say I like your consistent *style* in your posts,though I dont agree with many of them(they seem a bit dogmatic to me,Im more on the sceptic side) they have good intellectual quality.

quote:

Going back to human definition, I have a hard time with the term "infinity". We know that there is probably a beginning.

And just like you,I have a hard time with the term "beginning".Lets assume that our ancestors are monkeys,I wonder at which exact point can you say:"we're human from now on,we were monkeys before".

And beginning concept takes us to creationism which is certainly a contradictory idea.

About infinity issue I can say the model in my head is something like no.1 theory you posted but defined in a set (-inf,+inf)(If we see whatever happens(I couldnt find the right word but..) as a function of time).Infinity is really a mind boggling but satisfying subject to think about .

quote:

heh interesting how we began this conversation with birth control pills and now we are talking about evolution and eternity


I was thinking the same thing .

[ 11-14-2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Wolfheart ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

yes I see where you are going and now I have a question... Is there a point at which a human is not a human?

A human/thing is not a human when "it" does not fit our definition of "human" or "it" is not human if and when we choose not to recognize "it" as human

It's an excellent question and I'm sorry I had to give you that awful answer but I'm short on time for the next few days. Big paper due for Psychology class

Have fun talking about infinity! (it looks like the thread is heading in that direction...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Ockham:

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

yes I see where you are going and now I have a question... Is there a point at which a human is not a human?

A human/thing is not a human when "it" does not fit our definition of "human" or "it" is not human if and when we choose not to recognize "it" as human


I agree on all points except one:what is "we" and what significance does that "we" have compared to the other people which you didnt include in "we"?I would prefer "I".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Ockham

A human/thing is not a human when "it" does not fit our definition of "human" or "it" is not human if and when we choose not to recognize "it" as human

As is "we" had the wisdom to make that decision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfheart:

I agree on all points except one:what is "we" and what significance does that "we" have compared to the other people which you didnt include in "we"?I would prefer "I".

Good point. I was being lazy. I'll clarify even though it might just be stating the obvious...

"A human is not a human when it does not fit our (our=all citizens of a particular nation/state) definition (definition=legal definition) of "human" or it is not human if and when we (should have said ÔÇ£IÔÇØ or ÔÇ£youÔÇØ) choose not to recognize it as human"

"We" are citizens (I think for most of us, US citizens) who live under a government that gives a legal definition of a "human being."

This doesn't mean all citizens believe the definition is correct. Having to abide by these laws is just a consequence of living in the particular society/nation we live in (Again, I'm speaking as though I assume everyone lives in the US, sorry).

Youll even find some people out there who believe that choosing to have an abortion is wrong yet believe that women should still be able to maintain the right of choice

What it comes down to is that this is a democracy and ideally the legal system of the United States should be a reflection of the moral values of the majority of US citizens...

Unless!

The consequence(s) of any particular law(s) infringe upon the basic right(s) of any individual or group of individual citizens.

So with the example of abortion I can understand completely that there are people out there (*lots* of people) that feel that having a law that legalizes abortion is clearly wrong because it violates an unborn childÔÇÖs/humanÔÇÖs/personÔÇÖs right to live.

Anyways, sorry for the confusion and the misuse of pronouns.

OK, back to homework

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel pessimistic about democracy,it seems to me that its a system where quantity not quality counts.Majorities who make their decisions based on "common sense" rule,while quality ideas (like pro-choice) arent important.

As I said I have problems digesting beginning of "..." kind of expressions.I find it difficult to understand why people think there should be a beginning to all.I cant imagine a barrier somewhere in the past(or future).

There are some interesting pantheist philosphers(some say they arent,I dont agree) in turkish history,if you are ever interested in it the most famous one is "yunus emre".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×