27 Feb 07
All of this filibuster can be easily sidestepped when one considers the only reliable source for determining such things, i.e., the Bible. Since God gives life, who better to consult on matters such as when it begins and ends?
The Bible is achingly clear that biological life begins at the moment of conception. Human biological life, when considering issues related to the make-up of man. However, the Bible is equally perspicuous regarding when soul life begins: at the moment of birth, "away from the womb." All of that is to draw the line of distinction between biological life and soul life. Zygote, blastocyst all notwithstanding, are aspects of human biological life... the result of successful human copulation.
Regardless of the success of such copulation, only God can create a soul--- which He does at the moment of birth. Any 'life' prior to that stage is merely biological sans extraordinary merit or rights.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by dottewellYet that's exactly what no1 kept arguing (regardless of what he intended to argue). Since you've presented a better version of the argument from UDDA, I won't pursue that line further.
It's irrelevant because this is an argument of the form:
It is a NECESSARY condition of being X's being a human being that X is dead if and only if UDDA1 or UDDA2 applies to X.
In other words the argument does not mention SUFFICIENT conditions for "being a human being" at all. And it doesn't have to. It isn't proposing a comprehensive d ...[text shortened]... B)
...well, that's just plain wrong. No one in their right mind would argue that.
In any case, the UDDA text does not give us necessary conditions for human death. You may argue that it can be reasonably inferred but, since it isn't in the text, the burden of proof would be on those claiming the inference. That could be an interesting debate.
27 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I didn't you fool. I argued that the fact that the conditions necessary for a human being's death are impossible in a zygote/embyro is more evidence that a zygote/embyro is not a human being. You've made this same sort of ludicrous error before; applying formal deductive rules to an inductive argument.
Yet that's exactly what no1 kept arguing (regardless of what he intended to argue). Since you've presented a better version of the argument from UDDA, I won't pursue that line further.
In any case, the UDDA text does not give us necessary conditions for human death. You may argue that it can be reasonably inferred but, since it isn't in the ...[text shortened]... rden of proof would be on those claiming the inference. That could be an interesting debate.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe only mistake I made was in using an incorrect word in the title of the Act. That was an innocent error and one that doesn't affect the argument anyway.
[b]First, your claim that I misrepresented ANYTHING is clearly false and a deliberately so. I'll expect an insincere apology immediately.
You did misrepresent it. I'm not going to apologise for saying the truth.
And I did not "claim" that it was a deliberate misrepresentation. I said I cannot see how how an [experienced] lawyer like you coul ...[text shortened]... lay the thesaurus and provide synonyms for 'fool' beside repeating yourself.[/b]
The intent of the Act was to codify into law the medical determination that complete, irreversible brain death marked the death of a human being just as much as the traditional cardiopulmonary definition. The Act thus provides two definitions of death; the cardiopulmonary one and the brain death one. And I won't bother to "prove" that a law regarding death and its definition/determination adopted in all 50 States was intended to apply to human beings and not goldfish or cows - that's self-evident.
One doesn't into a "civil debate" by falsely accusing others of misrepresenting something.
28 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA traditional religious definition of when death occurred in a human being was the moment the soul left the body. LH would apparently argue that something without a soul could still die a human death using an analogous argument to the one he is making regarding the lack of a circulatory system and brain.
All of this filibuster can be easily sidestepped when one considers the only reliable source for determining such things, i.e., the Bible. Since God gives life, who better to consult on matters such as when it begins and ends?
The Bible is achingly clear that biological life begins at the moment of conception. Human biological life, when consid th. Any 'life' prior to that stage is merely biological sans extraordinary merit or rights.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd, conversely, a human being must first be endowed with a soul in order to be considered as such. Anything leading up to such an impartation would (biblically) be considered simple biological life.
A traditional religious definition of when death occurred in a human being was the moment the soul left the body. LH would apparently argue that something without a soul could still die a human death using an analogous argument to the one he is making regarding the lack of a circulatory system and brain.
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can't hide behind the "it was an inductive argument" line in this case.
No, I didn't you fool. I argued that the fact that the conditions necessary for a human being's death are impossible in a zygote/embyro is more evidence that a zygote/embyro is not a human being. You've made this same sort of ludicrous error before; applying formal deductive rules to an inductive argument.
For one thing, your original argument was a deductive argument. And it was very obviously presented as one.
For another, the UDDA gave conditions sufficient for a human being's death -- not necessary ones. If the UDDA had given necessary conditions, then you wouldn't need to make your argument inductive -- the deductive argument works fine.
Continue calling me names and accusing me of "ludicrous" errors if you like. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right in this case.
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat about truthfully accusing someone of misrepresenting something? Is that civil?
The only mistake I made was in using an incorrect word in the title of the Act. That was an innocent error and one that doesn't affect the argument anyway.
The intent of the Act was to codify into law the medical determination that complete, irreversible brain death marked the death of a human being just as much as the traditional cardiopulmon ...[text shortened]... e doesn't into a "civil debate" by falsely accusing others of misrepresenting something.
There is a world of difference between a definition of death and a determination of one. And that difference makes all the difference to the argument you presented in this thread. Your error may have been in good faith; that doesn't change the fact that it was used to buttress your flawed argument.
The intent of the Act was to codify into law the medical determination that complete, irreversible brain death marked the death of a human being just as much as the traditional cardiopulmonary definition.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing here. But that's not what you're arguing. What you're arguing is that the intent of the Act was to make these necessary conditions of human death -- something the text (and name!) of the Act does not support.
And I won't bother to "prove" that a law regarding death and its definition/determination adopted in all 50 States was intended to apply to human beings and not goldfish or cows - that's self-evident.
Not as self-evident as you make it out to be. Were all the rights in the US Constitution intended to apply to all human beings (including slaves) in its jurisdiction?
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderEr... no. If you've been following my discussion with dottewell, you'll see that the problem arose from your claim that the UDDA defined a "dead human being" as "..."
A traditional religious definition of when death occurred in a human being was the moment the soul left the body. LH would apparently argue that something without a soul could still die a human death using an analogous argument to the one he is making regarding the lack of a circulatory system and brain.
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo a clone or embryo that is developed without ever being placed in a womb will never be given a soul? Or will God make a different rule for such cases?
Regardless of the success of such copulation, only God can create a soul--- which He does at the moment of birth. Any 'life' prior to that stage is merely biological sans extraordinary merit or rights.
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's what it does by clear implication. I don't care about your discussion with dottewell; you're both blabbering on about formal rules for deductive logic that are inapplicable here.
Er... no. If you've been following my discussion with dottewell, you'll see that the problem arose from your claim that the UDDA defined a "dead human being" as "..."
03 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour foolishness knows no bounds.
What about truthfully accusing someone of misrepresenting something? Is that civil?
There is a world of difference between a definition of death and a determination of one. And that difference makes all the difference to the argument you presented in this thread. Your error may have been in good faith; that doesn't change the fact tha stitution intended to apply to all human beings (including slaves) in its jurisdiction?
You're nitpicking as usual. Keep ignoring that the UDDA gives two definitions of death and that it was meant to codify those definitions into law. Please explain how someone can be dead if they don't satisfy one of the two definitions - cardiopulmonary or brain death. The conditions are necessary.
As for your last paragraph, I have pointed out repeatedly that. contrary to the argument that antiabortionists make, slaves were definitely considered full human beings by law. And no one, not even you, is thick enough to fail to understand that laws are made to apply to human beings and that they so apply doesn't have to be specifically mentioned in the law.
EDIT: You, of course, continue to ignore the points made in the article I cited. Here's part, AGAIN:
Both of the currently recognized standards of death are arguably compatible with this organismic concept. Under the cardiopulmonary standard, death occurs when a patient's heart and lungs have permanently ceased to function -- that is to say, when they no longer support each other or other organ systems. Under the whole-brain standard, a patient is dead when her brainstem no longer orchestrates her vital functions. In either case, the appeal is to the role of a particular organ or system in the functioning of the organism as a whole.
Two recognized standards of death both of which are codified in the UDDA.
03 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO!!! Did you bother to read the original post? It concluded thus:
You can't hide behind the "it was an inductive argument" line in this case.
For one thing, your original argument [b]was a deductive argument. And it was very obviously presented as one.
For another, the UDDA gave conditions sufficient for a human being's death -- not necessary ones. If the UDDA had given necessary conditions, then yo ...[text shortened]... of "ludicrous" errors if you like. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right in this case.[/b]
no1: So how can something be a human being if it is impossible for it to die under the definitions of how a human being dies?
Yeah, that sure sounds like a deductive argument! Actually, it looks like a question to me.