Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

[garebear]

.

[Primemuscle]

I don't think that you can cogently argue that the fetus maintain homeostasis and it certainly cannot reproduce.

As to the definition of life: You're right that it can be tricky. I think that the one that you gave applies just as well to a weed growing on your lawn and even amoebas.

As with all of us a fetus is a collection of cells. A fetus grows and develops by reproducing these cells. Homeostasis is a bit harder to explain. But, if you think of the fetus in terms of its parts rather than just the whole, I believe the definition of homeostasis applies.

Definition of HOMEOSTASIS

 : a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group

As for the definition of life, the one I gave is not my invention. Here are the citations:

1.^ a b Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). "The Seven Pillars of Life". Science 295 (5563): 2215–2216. DOI:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25.

2.^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, via Answers.com: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
 "The characteristic state or condition of a living organism."

Are you suggesting that a fetus is of no more value than a weed in someone's lawn?

[avxo]

While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.

I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?

The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.

[Primemuscle]

While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.

I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?

The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.

Your as big a pain in the ass as I am when it comes to details....so let us give this discussion a rest and everyone else a break here. Better and more learned folks than either you or I will decide what constitutes life and what does not when it comes to the fetus.

As for what is morally right or wrong, I have no intention of imposing my morals on someone else. Being a man, I cannot get pregnant, so what I believe about abortion is of little consequence. However, I believe if I were able to carry a child, I would probably not elect to have an abortion unless the fetus was seriously damaged and there was no hope for a decent life should it survive. This is just an opinion, you understand. I am entitled to that. It is not open to discussion.

[loco]

While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.

I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?

The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.

Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities


Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

[Primemuscle]

Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities


Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

The quotes attributed to professer Singer are clearly disturbing when taken out of context as you've done here. Did you read the links you posted? While I may not agree with what he says, he makes some interesting points no matter how horrific they may seem to some people.

[avxo]

Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities


Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

I believe that Singer may be getting misrepresented here. Remember, Peter Singer wrote at least two books on animal rights and morality, and how not treating animals as we do humans (more or less) is inherently immoral.

Your as big a pain in the ass as I am when it comes to details....so let us give this discussion a rest and everyone else a break here. Better and more learned folks than either you or I will decide what constitutes life and what does not when it comes to the fetus.

I think there's some inherent danger in just letting others decide on such matters, and for us to blindly accept their definition. Besides, even if an ironclad definition of life came out today that meant that you could say inerrantly "oh, the fetus isn't alive until this objective criterion is met" there would still be a great many people who wouldn't abide by it.

As for what is morally right or wrong, I have no intention of imposing my morals on someone else. Being a man, I cannot get pregnant, so what I believe about abortion is of little consequence. However, I believe if I were able to carry a child, I would probably not elect to have an abortion unless the fetus was seriously damaged and there was no hope for a decent life should it survive. This is just an opinion, you understand. I am entitled to that. It is not open to discussion.

Of course; I never said you weren't entitled to one. Thanks for the interesting discussion!

[Mr. Magoo]

I believe that Singer may be getting misrepresented here. Remember, Peter Singer wrote at least two books on animal rights and morality, and how not treating animals as we do humans (more or less) is inherently immoral.

That's not Singer's argument. Singer bases his argument on the grounds that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is morally wrong, and that if we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing anything of similar value, we have a moral obligation to do so. He takes from Bentham the idea that what makes something worthy of moral consideration is whether or not it can feel pain. He doesn't hold (which your take on his implies) that it is inherently immoral to treat animals differently. He would be in favor for example, of sacrificing one animal to prevent pain and suffering on a large number of humans, even though it would be treating the animal differently. He would say it would be morally good to do so (if one knew all the alternatives, consequences of alternatives, etc etc). He is a utilitarian in its strongest sense.

But at any rate, in regards to Loco. Posting bits and pieces of what a person says in an attempt to misrepresent a viewpoint and thereby make it easier to dismiss without trying to completely understand it, is dumbassness at its finest. Low move and should not be tolerated.

[avxo]

That's not Singer's argument. Singer bases his argument on the grounds that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is morally wrong, and that if we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing anything of similar value, we have a moral obligation to do so. He takes from Bentham the idea that what makes something worthy of moral consideration is whether or not it can feel pain. He doesn't hold (which your take on his implies) that it is inherently immoral to treat animals differently. He would be in favor for example, of sacrificing one animal to prevent pain and suffering on a large number of humans, even though it would be treating the animal differently. He would say it would be morally good to do so (if one knew all the alternatives, consequences of alternatives, etc etc). He is a utilitarian in its strongest sense.

I'm not intimately familiar with Singer's work, but now that you mention it, I think what you wrote sounds pretty close to what I read in his book. Thanks.

[Dos Equis]

While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.

I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?

The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.

A newborn baby is just as dependent as an unborn child.  Cannot survive on its own. 

[Dos Equis]

Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities


Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

Ah yes.  I remember this fool.  How the heck does he stay on the payroll at Princeton?? 

[avxo]

A newborn baby is just as dependent as an unborn child.  Cannot survive on its own.

No doubt. But it is an independent entity, unlike a fetus, and can maintain homeostasis by itself.

Ah yes.  I remember this fool.  How the heck does he stay on the payroll at Princeton??

Singer is no fool (although I disagree with some of his conclusions and his philosophy of ethics). Have you actually read any of his work, or are you just going based on what you once heard someone say a third cousin of his second wife told him?

[Dos Equis]

No doubt. But it is an independent entity, unlike a fetus, and can maintain homeostasis by itself.

A newborn is not by any stretch independent.  Cannot talk, walk, feed herself, bathe, or do pretty much anything else except cry, poop, and sleep.  A newborn would die without substantial attention.  No logical difference between a newborn and an unborn child when it comes to dependency. 

[avxo]

A newborn is not by any stretch independent.  Cannot talk, walk, feed herself, bathe, or do pretty much anything else except cry, poop, and sleep.  A newborn would die without substantial attention.  No logical difference between a newborn and an unborn child when it comes to dependency.  

I said it is an independent ENTITY, not that it is independent. This may come as a surprise to you but words, do actually, have meaning. And there is a huge difference between a newborn and an unborn child. One is physically connected to another organism (the mother) and the other is not.

[Shockwave]

I said it is an independent ENTITY, not that it is independent. This may come as a surprise to you but words, do actually, have meaning. And there is a huge difference between a newborn and an unborn child. One is physically connected to another organism (the mother) and the other is not.

The fetus could almost be classified as a parasite, going by the technical definition.

[Dos Equis]

No doubt. But it is an independent entity, unlike a fetus, and can maintain homeostasis by itself.


Singer is no fool (although I disagree with some of his conclusions and his philosophy of ethics). Have you actually read any of his work, or are you just going based on what you once heard someone say a third cousin of his second wife told him?

Yes, Singer is a fool.  I've read enough to know he is a fool.  Anyone saying this:  ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" is a fool.  Especially someone who is supposed to be an ethics expert.  How he made it to and stays on an Ivy League payroll is mystifying.   

[Dos Equis]

I said it is an independent ENTITY, not that it is independent. This may come as a surprise to you but words, do actually, have meaning. And there is a huge difference between a newborn and an unborn child. One is physically connected to another organism (the mother) and the other is not.

A distinction without a difference, especially if you're trying to draw some kind of moral distinction between a newborn and an unborn baby (particularly a third trimester baby).

As I've already highlighted, there is no logical distinction between an unborn baby and a newborn, whether you're talking about independence, an indpendent "entity," or whatever.  I'm talking about an unborn child in the womb in the late third trimester.  There are no physical differences.  The lungs need almost the full pregnancy to be completely developed, but that's about it.  A newborn is no less connected to her mother than a unborn child. 

And who refers to women as "organisms"?  lol

[Shockwave]

A distinction without a difference, especially if you're trying to draw some kind of moral distinction between a newborn and an unborn baby (particularly a third trimester baby).

As I've already highlighted, there is no logical distinction between an unborn baby and a newborn, whether you're talking about independence, an indpendent "entity," or whatever.  I'm talking about an unborn child in the womb in the late third trimester.  There are no physical differences.  The lungs need almost the full pregnancy to be completely developed, but that's about it.  A newborn is no less connected to her mother than a unborn child. 

And who refers to women as "organisms"?  lol

He's stepping back and looking at humans through larger eyes, I.E. that were just another animal that reproduces, survives, and feeds, only a little smarter.
Which, technically he is correct, we are just another organism on the face of the planet. Were just a helluva lot smarter than the rest of the organisms that inhabit this rock.

[Dos Equis]

He's stepping back and looking at humans through larger eyes, I.E. that were just another animal that reproduces, survives, and feeds, only a little smarter.
Which, technically he is correct, we are just another organism on the face of the planet. Were just a helluva lot smarter than the rest of the organisms that inhabit this rock.

Yeah I understand.  We are "organisms" or whatever other technical terms that apply, but who talks like that in real life?  Maybe Singer?  Or anyone else trying to devalue human life? 

Was talking to someone the other day about abortion (which I rarely do), and she called an unborn child a "parasite."  This is very often what people do when they're trying to justify a behavior that at its core is reprehensible.  Dehumanizing the baby makes it easier to conclude killing an unborn baby is ok.  Not true of everyone, but if you listen to how people frame the discussion, it's a very clear pattern.   

[Mr. Magoo]

Yes, Singer is a fool.  I've read enough to know he is a fool.  Anyone saying this:  ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" is a fool.  Especially someone who is supposed to be an ethics expert.  How he made it to and stays on an Ivy League payroll is mystifying.   

wow lol you have obviously not read much on ethics or Singer.

In the future, try not to dismiss the viewpoints of others so quickly before reading them and understanding why they are saying what they are. Hell, Singer is one of the easiest to read.

[Dos Equis]

wow lol you have obviously not read much on ethics or Singer.

In the future, try not to dismiss the viewpoints of others so quickly before reading them and understanding why they are saying what they are. Hell, Singer is one of the easiest to read.

I've read all I need to read from that fool. lol

If I understand that a viewpoint is stupid, why do I need to evaluate it further?  Some viewpoints are so asinine that you only need to hear them once, without elaboration, to conclude they are absurd. 

[avxo]

I've read all I need to read from that fool. lol

If I understand that a viewpoint is stupid, why do I need to evaluate it further?  Some viewpoints are so asinine that you only need to hear them once, without elaboration, to conclude they are absurd. 

The problem is you don't understand what Singer is saying. You're taking a snippet from a large body of work, stripping it of all context and then using it to paint the whole work.

The intellectually honest approach would be to actually read his books before criticizing them, but that requires effort and the willingness to examine other viewpoints. And that could you lead you to doubt your grimoire. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

[Dos Equis]

The problem is you don't understand what Singer is saying. You're taking a snippet from a large body of work, stripping it of all context and then using it to paint the whole work.

The intellectually honest approach would be to actually read his books before criticizing them, but that requires effort and the willingness to examine other viewpoints. And that could you lead you to doubt your grimoire. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

That's actually pretty humorous.  Isn't that exactly what many people do who criticize the Bible?  A verse here, a verse there, completely out of context. 

But this guy?  Puh-leaze.  There is nothing intellectually honest about reading more stupidity from a guy who lives in a whacked out world.  Reminds me of that lipstick on a pick analogy. 

And examining other viewpoints is terrific.  I do it all the time.  But examining other viewpoints isn't the same as arguing about stupid stuff.  You know, like trying to argue murdering the elderly and disabled isn't immoral. 

"Grimoire"?   lol  What the heck does that mean?? 

[avxo]

That's actually pretty humorous.  Isn't that exactly what many people do who criticize the Bible?  A verse here, a verse there, completely out of context.

You're right that some people do that. Some to criticize, others to promote (i.e. the whole "John 3:16" bit). It's not always wrong to focus on a quote. What's important is to be intellectually honest about it and to not strip out context and pretend that the whole body of the work boils down to 3 or 4 words.

And it's always wrong to judge a work - whether it's the Bible or Peter Singer's writings - from a few hand picked bits and pieces.

But this guy?  Puh-leaze.  There is nothing intellectually honest about reading more stupidity from a guy who lives in a whacked out world.  Reminds me of that lipstick on a pick analogy.

As I said before - you're judging a body of work by a quote you misunderstand and have taken out of context. I don't necessarily agree with Singer's viewpoints, but at least he can rationally defend his positions - and his arguments are often surprisingly strong.

And examining other viewpoints is terrific.  I do it all the time.  But examining other viewpoints isn't the same as arguing about stupid stuff.  You know, like trying to argue murdering the elderly and disabled isn't immoral.

I'm sorry to see that you confuse asking why something isn't moral and playing devil's advocate with actually supporting that position.

"Grimoire"?   lol  What the heck does that mean?? 

It's a book that contains magic spells and invocations.

[Dos Equis]

You're right that some people do that. Some to criticize, others to promote (i.e. the whole "John 3:16" bit). It's not always wrong to focus on a quote. What's important is to be intellectually honest about it and to not strip out context and pretend that the whole body of the work boils down to 3 or 4 words.

And it's always wrong to judge a work - whether it's the Bible or Peter Singer's writings - from a few hand picked bits and pieces.


As I said before - you're judging a body of work by a quote you misunderstand and have taken out of context. I don't necessarily agree with Singer's viewpoints, but at least he can rationally defend his positions - and his arguments are often surprisingly strong.

I'm sorry to see that you confuse asking why something isn't moral and playing devil's advocate with actually supporting that position.


It's a book that contains magic spells and invocations.

Who is judging a body of work?  I just think he's a fool.  I don't need to read his body of work to reinforce or contradict my belief.  Sometimes someone can say something so ridiculous that the only conclusion is they are a fool.  Or on drugs.  Or crazy.  And in no way, shape, or form should he be teaching kids about ethics.   

I don't have a book of magic spells and invocations, so not sure what you're talking about.  Wait, I think I know what "invocations" means.   Prayers?  lol 

Is this Deicide (or however you spell his name)?  He likes to use them big words too.  (Big word meaning "grimoire" not "invocation").  I have never heard that word in real life.  I need to get out more.  lol  . . . .