Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Committed 0.17% of manslaughter

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

31 Mar 2012, 7:53 pm

Joker wrote:
webcam wrote:
Joker wrote:
I can agree with that I'm simply playing the devils advocate it's my style of debating. As for my thought's on abortion as a man I have none if I was a woman I would have certin views about it but I believe in letting the women choose what to do with her body.


What if it was your baby?


I would become a better father then the man that help bring me into this world why do you ask?


I mean should it still be her decision if it's your unplanned pregnancy? Would you let her make the decision with no input what so ever? It sounds like you want to be a good father, not one that allowed the murder of his child.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

31 Mar 2012, 7:54 pm

I amire your passion LKL.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

31 Mar 2012, 7:54 pm

LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
Here is my take for those that believe in Evouliton not allowing the fetus to evolve into a human being wouldn't that be murder since your keeping it from being fully developed into a baby inside the mother think about that way.


PS this is my mothers point of veiw on the matter.


AAARRRRRGHGGHHHGHH!
Stop pretending you know anything about biology, pro-lifers!
Individuals DO NOT evolve. Populations evolve.
Jesus effing christ. This whole thread is full of fail.


I'm not pro-lifer btw the fetus inside the mother evolves into a baby and the baby becomes a person so yes :wink: they evolve LKL

No, Joker. By definition they do not evolve.


You should have read my post first :)



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

31 Mar 2012, 8:00 pm

LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
Here is my take for those that believe in Evouliton not allowing the fetus to evolve into a human being wouldn't that be murder since your keeping it from being fully developed into a baby inside the mother think about that way.


PS this is my mothers point of veiw on the matter.

AAARRRRRGHGGHHHGHH!
Stop pretending you know anything about biology, pro-lifers!
Individuals DO NOT evolve. Populations evolve.
Jesus effing christ. This whole thread is full of fail.


Actually we accumulate DNA throughout our lives, so we as individuals do evolve... We just do it slowly and as part of a long process. Again, you're too stuck on dictionary definitions that don't suit reality. Small changes mean something and they add up. Evolution is a process, and we are all part of it. This thread is full of discussion.

NO. We start out with the same complement DNA as we'll have when we die; the genes present in the ovum and sperm are the same genes we'll have our entire life. Unless you're counting somatic mutations like those which cause cancer, and that's neither 'evolution,' nor 'accumulating DNA.'
I'm not 'stuck on dictionary definitions,' I'm stuck on reality. This stuff is literally grade-school level biology, for crying out loud.


Actually when we get viruses we get more DNA, vaccines can do the same. If it happens to be germline in nature then we pass it on and contribute to the species. Mutations aren't always bad either and can also contribute. In this sense given that there is time between you and your siblings should you have any, you have different DNA than they do. Grade school was along time ago for you. We've made new discoveries since then and you are capable of understanding more now.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

31 Mar 2012, 8:03 pm

LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Darling, No. No.
I said it before: google chemotaxis. There is no 'nerve center,' no nervous system, no nerves. A single neuron is usually bigger than a sperm cell.

Seriously, I'm not being arrogant here, just honest: this is below Biology 101. You do not understand what you're talking about, so stop embarassing yourself and telling yourself that 'Of course I understand it, how hard can it be?!'

Here, I'll even do it for you. Some basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis


How about a nerve center equivalent? Cuz that's what I said.

Read the link. There is no "nerve center equivalent" because there ARE NO NERVES within individual cells. You are talking about an entity so small that it operates on a chemical, mechanical basis.


The thing I described was not a group of cells, but rather a motor mechanism and chemical awareness. Perhaps equivalent was too strong a term? How would you put it?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Mar 2012, 8:12 pm

webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
Here is my take for those that believe in Evouliton not allowing the fetus to evolve into a human being wouldn't that be murder since your keeping it from being fully developed into a baby inside the mother think about that way.


PS this is my mothers point of veiw on the matter.


AAARRRRRGHGGHHHGHH!
Stop pretending you know anything about biology, pro-lifers!
Individuals DO NOT evolve. Populations evolve.
Jesus effing christ. This whole thread is full of fail.


I'm not pro-lifer btw the fetus inside the mother evolves into a baby and the baby becomes a person so yes :wink: they evolve LKL

No, Joker. By definition they do not evolve.


You should have read my post first :)

which one? One that I've already read and responded to, perhaps?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Mar 2012, 8:15 pm

webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
Here is my take for those that believe in Evouliton not allowing the fetus to evolve into a human being wouldn't that be murder since your keeping it from being fully developed into a baby inside the mother think about that way.


PS this is my mothers point of veiw on the matter.

AAARRRRRGHGGHHHGHH!
Stop pretending you know anything about biology, pro-lifers!
Individuals DO NOT evolve. Populations evolve.
Jesus effing christ. This whole thread is full of fail.


Actually we accumulate DNA throughout our lives, so we as individuals do evolve... We just do it slowly and as part of a long process. Again, you're too stuck on dictionary definitions that don't suit reality. Small changes mean something and they add up. Evolution is a process, and we are all part of it. This thread is full of discussion.

NO. We start out with the same complement DNA as we'll have when we die; the genes present in the ovum and sperm are the same genes we'll have our entire life. Unless you're counting somatic mutations like those which cause cancer, and that's neither 'evolution,' nor 'accumulating DNA.'
I'm not 'stuck on dictionary definitions,' I'm stuck on reality. This stuff is literally grade-school level biology, for crying out loud.


Actually when we get viruses we get more DNA, vaccines can do the same. If it happens to be germline in nature then we pass it on and contribute to the species. Mutations aren't always bad either and can also contribute. In this sense given that there is time between you and your siblings should you have any, you have different DNA than they do. Grade school was along time ago for you. We've made new discoveries since then and you are capable of understanding more now.

Darlin', ERVs =/= evolution. They do not contribute to the species, although they do make helpful markers for researchers. Somatic mutations almost never contribute to the germ line, and when they do, that's still not YOU evolving. I have different DNA than my older brother, not MORE, and I am not more or less evolved than he is. Learning does not = evolution in a biological sense, which is the sense in which you were attempting to use the word.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Mar 2012, 8:17 pm

webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Darling, No. No.
I said it before: google chemotaxis. There is no 'nerve center,' no nervous system, no nerves. A single neuron is usually bigger than a sperm cell.

Seriously, I'm not being arrogant here, just honest: this is below Biology 101. You do not understand what you're talking about, so stop embarassing yourself and telling yourself that 'Of course I understand it, how hard can it be?!'

Here, I'll even do it for you. Some basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis


How about a nerve center equivalent? Cuz that's what I said.

Read the link. There is no "nerve center equivalent" because there ARE NO NERVES within individual cells. You are talking about an entity so small that it operates on a chemical, mechanical basis.


The thing I described was not a group of cells, but rather a motor mechanism and chemical awareness. Perhaps equivalent was too strong a term? How would you put it?

Motor mechanisms and chemicals are not 'aware' in any sense of the word unless you get into pantheistic religious ideas - which I, as a pantheist, do not oppose, but which apply to rocks and deionized water as much as they do to spermatozoa.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

31 Mar 2012, 8:55 pm

LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Darling, No. No.
I said it before: google chemotaxis. There is no 'nerve center,' no nervous system, no nerves. A single neuron is usually bigger than a sperm cell.

Seriously, I'm not being arrogant here, just honest: this is below Biology 101. You do not understand what you're talking about, so stop embarassing yourself and telling yourself that 'Of course I understand it, how hard can it be?!'

Here, I'll even do it for you. Some basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis


How about a nerve center equivalent? Cuz that's what I said.

Read the link. There is no "nerve center equivalent" because there ARE NO NERVES within individual cells. You are talking about an entity so small that it operates on a chemical, mechanical basis.


The thing I described was not a group of cells, but rather a motor mechanism and chemical awareness. Perhaps equivalent was too strong a term? How would you put it?

Motor mechanisms and chemicals are not 'aware' in any sense of the word unless you get into pantheistic religious ideas - which I, as a pantheist, do not oppose, but which apply to rocks and deionized water as much as they do to spermatozoa.


A sperm is as much a living organism as any other single celled life form am I right? Life is more than just having memory or motor too. The idea that something senses its environment and adapts to it proves that it has some very low form of consciousness. Maybe it doesn't have a brain as we do, but it still uses simple sensation to utilize programmed decisions in order to survive. This is as much a feeling, though a much more simple explanation of it as scent and sight. Pain is not finding survival for this type of organism IMO.

[jokes]
Man I feel as guilty as a Catholic for all the fapping I've done now...

If you want to remove some responsibility from your life in the event of pregnancy, kill you cat, not your kid!
[/jokes]



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

31 Mar 2012, 8:55 pm

LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
Joker wrote:
Here is my take for those that believe in Evouliton not allowing the fetus to evolve into a human being wouldn't that be murder since your keeping it from being fully developed into a baby inside the mother think about that way.


PS this is my mothers point of veiw on the matter.

AAARRRRRGHGGHHHGHH!
Stop pretending you know anything about biology, pro-lifers!
Individuals DO NOT evolve. Populations evolve.
Jesus effing christ. This whole thread is full of fail.


Actually we accumulate DNA throughout our lives, so we as individuals do evolve... We just do it slowly and as part of a long process. Again, you're too stuck on dictionary definitions that don't suit reality. Small changes mean something and they add up. Evolution is a process, and we are all part of it. This thread is full of discussion.

NO. We start out with the same complement DNA as we'll have when we die; the genes present in the ovum and sperm are the same genes we'll have our entire life. Unless you're counting somatic mutations like those which cause cancer, and that's neither 'evolution,' nor 'accumulating DNA.'
I'm not 'stuck on dictionary definitions,' I'm stuck on reality. This stuff is literally grade-school level biology, for crying out loud.


Actually when we get viruses we get more DNA, vaccines can do the same. If it happens to be germline in nature then we pass it on and contribute to the species. Mutations aren't always bad either and can also contribute. In this sense given that there is time between you and your siblings should you have any, you have different DNA than they do. Grade school was along time ago for you. We've made new discoveries since then and you are capable of understanding more now.

Darlin', ERVs =/= evolution. They do not contribute to the species, although they do make helpful markers for researchers. Somatic mutations almost never contribute to the germ line, and when they do, that's still not YOU evolving. I have different DNA than my older brother, not MORE, and I am not more or less evolved than he is. Learning does not = evolution in a biological sense, which is the sense in which you were attempting to use the word.


ERVs?



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

31 Mar 2012, 9:09 pm

Engineered Retro Virus maybe?

I could be WAY off on that though.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Mar 2012, 11:48 pm

ERV's = endogenous retroviruses. Retroviruses incorporate themselves into the host's DNA as part of the host's life cycle, and either the host cell is killed by the infection, commits apoptosis, is killed by the immune system, or dies with the natural death of the host if the infection remains latent. Occasionally, however, a germ cell is infected with an ERV and even more rarely the DNA of the ERV mutates in such a way that it cannot infect its host cells, meaning that there is essentially a dead virus in the DNA of the all of the future progeny of that individual. Because the exact placement of the ERV can now be measured precisely to the individual base-pair, ERVs can be used to track relationships amongst species. For example, if species A, B, and C all have ERV W, but only A and C have ERV X, then A, B, and C all shared a common ancestor but A anc C are more commonly related than A and B.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Mar 2012, 11:55 pm

webcam wrote:
A sperm is as much a living organism as any other single celled life form am I right? Life is more than just having memory or motor too. The idea that something senses its environment and adapts to it proves that it has some very low form of consciousness. Maybe it doesn't have a brain as we do, but it still uses simple sensation to utilize programmed decisions in order to survive. This is as much a feeling, though a much more simple explanation of it as scent and sight. Pain is not finding survival for this type of organism IMO.

[jokes]
Man I feel as guilty as a Catholic for all the fapping I've done now...

If you want to remove some responsibility from your life in the event of pregnancy, kill you cat, not your kid!
[/jokes]

A sperm IS a single-celled form of life, but what you don't seem to be getting is quite how simple and mechanical single-celled life is. Roomba robot vacuums can 'sense' and 'respond to' the environment, but that's because they're *programmed to.* The programming in a single cell is based on chemicals rather than transistors, but it's still programming. There is no sensation, no feeling, no desire, no hope, and no pain. Those things require a great deal more processing power than even something like a flatworm or a clam can show, much less a single cell.

My cat is sentient; a zef is not, until the 3rd trimester.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

01 Apr 2012, 11:15 am

LKL wrote:
webcam wrote:
A sperm is as much a living organism as any other single celled life form am I right? Life is more than just having memory or motor too. The idea that something senses its environment and adapts to it proves that it has some very low form of consciousness. Maybe it doesn't have a brain as we do, but it still uses simple sensation to utilize programmed decisions in order to survive. This is as much a feeling, though a much more simple explanation of it as scent and sight. Pain is not finding survival for this type of organism IMO.

[jokes]
Man I feel as guilty as a Catholic for all the fapping I've done now...

If you want to remove some responsibility from your life in the event of pregnancy, kill you cat, not your kid!
[/jokes]

A sperm IS a single-celled form of life, but what you don't seem to be getting is quite how simple and mechanical single-celled life is. Roomba robot vacuums can 'sense' and 'respond to' the environment, but that's because they're *programmed to.* The programming in a single cell is based on chemicals rather than transistors, but it's still programming. There is no sensation, no feeling, no desire, no hope, and no pain. Those things require a great deal more processing power than even something like a flatworm or a clam can show, much less a single cell.

My cat is sentient; a zef is not, until the 3rd trimester.


Well I guess I either have to argue that A) scale and complexity of decision making and network size does not eliminate those of infinitesimal size from having feelings on the basis of those feelings being knee jerk chemistry and that it only serves to illustrate that we have made ourselves out to be more than we are just the same as religion tells us we are gods and that we have this spirit and soul thing, or B) retreat to the possibility portion of my argument where stopping an embryo or fetus from developing is the same as stopping a person from living at any other part of their life.

Though I could do both A and B... I have a feeling we could be debating this for days or months...

What's a zef?



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

01 Apr 2012, 11:19 am

LKL wrote:
ERV's = endogenous retroviruses. Retroviruses incorporate themselves into the host's DNA as part of the host's life cycle, and either the host cell is killed by the infection, commits apoptosis, is killed by the immune system, or dies with the natural death of the host if the infection remains latent. Occasionally, however, a germ cell is infected with an ERV and even more rarely the DNA of the ERV mutates in such a way that it cannot infect its host cells, meaning that there is essentially a dead virus in the DNA of the all of the future progeny of that individual. Because the exact placement of the ERV can now be measured precisely to the individual base-pair, ERVs can be used to track relationships amongst species. For example, if species A, B, and C all have ERV W, but only A and C have ERV X, then A, B, and C all shared a common ancestor but A anc C are more commonly related than A and B.


So do ervs have any effect on protein synthesis? What is the basis for saying that much of the DNA we came to have today is not just the result of 100k's of years getting sneezing and coughing and then breeding with other sneezers and coughers?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

01 Apr 2012, 5:40 pm

webcam wrote:
LKL wrote:
ERV's = endogenous retroviruses. Retroviruses incorporate themselves into the host's DNA as part of the host's life cycle, and either the host cell is killed by the infection, commits apoptosis, is killed by the immune system, or dies with the natural death of the host if the infection remains latent. Occasionally, however, a germ cell is infected with an ERV and even more rarely the DNA of the ERV mutates in such a way that it cannot infect its host cells, meaning that there is essentially a dead virus in the DNA of the all of the future progeny of that individual. Because the exact placement of the ERV can now be measured precisely to the individual base-pair, ERVs can be used to track relationships amongst species. For example, if species A, B, and C all have ERV W, but only A and C have ERV X, then A, B, and C all shared a common ancestor but A anc C are more commonly related than A and B.


So do ervs have any effect on protein synthesis? What is the basis for saying that much of the DNA we came to have today is not just the result of 100k's of years getting sneezing and coughing and then breeding with other sneezers and coughers?

ERVs have no effect on protein synthesis until the latent infection becomes active, at which time they turn the infected cell into a virus factory. The inserted DNA codes only for viral proteins.

Getting sneezed and coughed on for billions of years has had influenced us (since before we were recognizably us) in that it has promoted us to evolve effective immune systems, but there is not a shred of evidence that viruses have contributed to our phenotype since before mammals existed.