Yes and no. In the Hebrew Bible, the word used by Isaiah is rightly translated as "young woman." In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible produced nearly 200 years before Christ, and much older than the oldest extant Hebrew language Bible), however, the word is in fact "virgin."
Many Christians themselves, not to mention those who don't know much about the religion (no offense, but the majority of/.), are unaware of the fact that the Apostles themselves would most likely have used the Greek scriptures--indeed, it is apparent throughout the New Testament that the Hebrew scriptures being quoted nearly all are of Septuagintal origin.
You are, of course, welcome to disagree. I presented a logical argument (my "little chart") defending that conclusion, and on which stage of development has no bearing. Of course, you also truncated my statement from "a living human thing" to "a living human."
If you disagree, do so on grounds that one of my statements is incorrect, because the conclusion follows necessarily from them.
With regard to whether embryonic cells "look like" a person, see my post here. It may not look like an adult human being, but in fact it does resemble one in some important ways (just not visually). And again, I never did or would say that an animal is not "really alive." The question of whether it is ethical to kill and eat animals has no bearing on the question of when human life begins. What distinguishes between animals and the embryonic cells in question is that the latter is human. Right it or not, to the great majority of ethicists this makes a difference, and I imagine if we get down to brass tacks it does to you, too (ever slapped a mosquito buzzing at you? Or killed an annoying kid in class? There's a difference, right?).
Most of your problem seems to be with the government. I do not support everything my government wants to do (or much of it at all, really), and yes I am active in making my voice known on the matter. I am anti-war. I believe capital punishment is wrong and should be abolished. Please do not equate me and my beliefs with the Bush (or any other) administration.
Since you know nothing about me beyond a couple of brief posts here, you should probably refrain from personal attacks, too. You have no idea whether or how much I pay for internet access (free, by the way) or how I spend my time and energy, or even what my beliefs actually are. The group of people who are opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells on ethical grounds spans from atheist to Muslim to Christian to Buddhist.
I won't rehash it all here, but look at my other post (linked above) if you want to see a more formal argument. Take care.
At the risk of feeding a troll, I will at least attempt a brief answer.
Who's deciding what is "alive" and what is not? Of course sperm and egg are living, as they are not dead. They are not distinct entities, but when they combine they become a thing that is distinct from either of its parents, and is still alive. Whether it goes on the develop properly, or whether it is viable outside the womb, is not the point. It is a living human thing that is not identical with either parent, which is the important distinction to those opposed to harvesting embryos/abortion/etc. Hysterical rant #1 dispatched.
Nobody in the anti-(abortion) camp is claiming that animals are not alive. Whether it is morally licit to eat animals is entirely beside the present point (we call this a "red herring"). Furthermore, many who are opposed to harvesting embryos/abortion/etc. are also opposed to capital punishment, war, and so on. Many are outright pacifists--agree with them or not, it is a consistent position.
I leave you with this: a consistent life ethic. Next time take a moment to breathe before launching your attack.
Ad hominems directed toward the parent aside, you misunderstand the argument one might make in respect of conception as the beginning of life, and have clouded the water with only marginally related (although interesting) questions regarding cloning and such.
Conception as the beginning of life follows a line of thinking something like this:
1) The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human thing. (of course, so is your arm or kidney) 2) This thing is not non-living, so it is a living thing. (whether it is independent has nothing to do with whether it is living--see arm/kidney) 3) This thing is genetically distinct from the parents. (as opposed to unique, as per your example of identical twins) 4) So the zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human thing that is not either parent.
Viability outside the womb, or relative completeness of development, is actually irrelevant. At conception, there is a living human thing that is distinct from, and hence not identical to, its parents. The question is whether you think that living human thing has value. Most people think that other human living things have an inherent value, such that it is morally reprehensible to cause such a thing to cease to live (at least against its will, but that's another debate) or to harm it. Also irrelevant is the apparent dissonance in those people who believe that an unborn human living thing must be protected, while one that has been born can be justly killed.
The arbitrary and subjective line drawing enters when one attempts to differentiate between one living human thing and another based on something other than its nature: a living human thing. That nature does not change with stage of development, intelligence, impairment, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, political persuasion, age, criminal behavior and so on.
That's why this matters. It's easy to point at a petri dish and say "it's just a bunch of cells;" as others here have pointed out, the same is true of an adult living human thing. Distinguishing between the two cannot be a matter of mere rhetorical device.
Does anyone else in this room find it odd and unsettling that the very same people who are so against killing people before they're born are constantly requisitioning more funds from congress in order to kill people after they've been born? (well, very long after. And "those people" aren't "my people" so that makes it fair and just, doesn't it?)
I've heard this line of critique before, and am at least somewhat sympathetic considering the loudest mouths in American politics. All the same, bear in mind that there are many of us who are opposed to any and all forms of abortion who are also opposed to capital punishment, euthanasia, war... to violence and injustice in general.
Indeed. I would say that the religious who really take their religion seriously will tend to be none of the above. Those who rather use it as a justification for unrelated (and conflicting) ends will tend to be precisely all of the above.
I wonder who you think is qualified to decide when someone can take care of their children? Or who sets the standard of what "caring for them" looks like? Should it be enforced? Do we sterilize the poor so they don't have children which, in our opinions, they are not "capable of caring for?"
Seems to me some notable people grew up well below the presumably expected level of affluence necessary for being "cared for" properly (Abe Lincoln's three-walled cabin?). Calling their parents selfish imposes on them a whole system of values and thought foreign to the overwhelming majority of people on earth both now and throughout history.
I guess in some other countries, where bizzare murders and school/work shootings happen all the time and people are bored of it, people would rather hear about Angela Jolie and Brad Pitt.
After living in L.A. for the past year and watching the news fairly regularly, I'd have to say that's about right. It's either celebs or car chases.
"I would like to download some Metallica on Kazaa."
"My iPod is full of music which I did not purchase."
"I enjoy watching movies I got off Limewire." (yeah right, like I could actually get something decent off Limewire!)
"This latest hit single from Beyonce, which you hear playing in the background, has been obtained in ways not approved by the RIAA. So sue me."
"My entire mp3/ogg/wma collection is available on a peer-to-peer network for any virtual passers-by to peruse and download at will."
I don't know, "Talk Like a Pirate Day" sounds like more fun than it actually is, I guess.
"To do really great satirical attacks, you need to LOVE the material you are making fun of..."
I don't know about that. Candide is perhaps the most biting, genius works of satire ever created, yet I don't think Voltaire had much affection for Gottfried Liebnitz (whose theodicy he was lampoons via the fictional philosopher Pangloss).
Of course, maybe he did, and he was satirizing misapplications of Liebnitz?
Someone should submit a craftily worded patent on both submitting and granting bogus patents, and then whenever this crap comes along sue both the Patent Office and the submitter. Neither would want to claim prior art on it, as it would be an outright admission of incompetence/asshole-itude, but in court it shouldn't be too hard to prove...
Crap, does this post count as prior art? Can I sue myself?
None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected. Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country?
Ugh. Seriously.
Why does this have to be divided along these lines? There are plenty of scientists across all disciplines who are both religious and intelligent, who give science its due and keep religion out of the results of experimentation. I believe in God (and happen to also be well-educated), but that in no way precludes my belief that evolution is, in fact, the way things happened (and continue to happen). My father-in-law is a respected geologist in the field of igneous petrology, a wonderful human being, and a devout Christian. His Christianity doesn't undermine his science or vice versa. My undergrad institution is a Christian liberal arts school, but the science classes exhibit scientific excellence, not dogmatic allegiance to a forgone conclusion.
Shrill, self-styled "iconoclast" Creationists/ID-ers by no means comprise the majority of Christianity. Most Christian denominations, in fact, teach that the book of Genesis is intended to teach about the character of God and God's relation to humanity, not science. For heaven's (and earth's!) sake, can we break out of this outdated generalization??
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
That's funny. I've never gone for those things because I didn't want to get (more) junk mail. The last time I moved I got a card from the Ralph's up the street, but acted like I was in a hurry and asked if I could just bring the application form back in later. The clerk said that was fine, gave me the application and the Ralph's Card, and sent me on my way.
Obviously, I just threw out the application and have been using the anonymous card ever since.
This reminds me of a short story I read a few years back that I LOVED. Problem is, I've been trying unsuccessfully to remember the author's name ever since... maybe someone can help me out?
A side note in the main story involved personalized advertizing on every surface imaginable, from the walls to the bar counter, all addressing the characters by name and annoying the hell out of them. I believe the story revolved around a team of geeks installing next-gen super-duper-high-speed untrackable networks (in trees at one point) while being literally attacked by government agents for breaking some trade rules. It was great.
Related, there was another story by I think the same author about a couple of guys who were part of a government "body hacking" experiment, whereby they could control their bodies' healing and such using a PDA attached to a port installed in their neck (quasi-Matrix-style... sorta). They escaped the lab, were eventually caught, and the story ended with one of them getting off of a plane in Africa to escape the US government, stolen laptop and interfacing cables in hand. Again, fantastic short story.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no. In the Hebrew Bible, the word used by Isaiah is rightly translated as "young woman." In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible produced nearly 200 years before Christ, and much older than the oldest extant Hebrew language Bible), however, the word is in fact "virgin."
Many Christians themselves, not to mention those who don't know much about the religion (no offense, but the majority of /.), are unaware of the fact that the Apostles themselves would most likely have used the Greek scriptures--indeed, it is apparent throughout the New Testament that the Hebrew scriptures being quoted nearly all are of Septuagintal origin.
Agreed. Sorry for missing your intended meaning. But agreed, either way.
If you disagree, do so on grounds that one of my statements is incorrect, because the conclusion follows necessarily from them.
With regard to whether embryonic cells "look like" a person, see my post here. It may not look like an adult human being, but in fact it does resemble one in some important ways (just not visually). And again, I never did or would say that an animal is not "really alive." The question of whether it is ethical to kill and eat animals has no bearing on the question of when human life begins. What distinguishes between animals and the embryonic cells in question is that the latter is human. Right it or not, to the great majority of ethicists this makes a difference, and I imagine if we get down to brass tacks it does to you, too (ever slapped a mosquito buzzing at you? Or killed an annoying kid in class? There's a difference, right?).
Most of your problem seems to be with the government. I do not support everything my government wants to do (or much of it at all, really), and yes I am active in making my voice known on the matter. I am anti-war. I believe capital punishment is wrong and should be abolished. Please do not equate me and my beliefs with the Bush (or any other) administration.
Since you know nothing about me beyond a couple of brief posts here, you should probably refrain from personal attacks, too. You have no idea whether or how much I pay for internet access (free, by the way) or how I spend my time and energy, or even what my beliefs actually are. The group of people who are opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells on ethical grounds spans from atheist to Muslim to Christian to Buddhist.
I won't rehash it all here, but look at my other post (linked above) if you want to see a more formal argument. Take care.
At the risk of feeding a troll, I will at least attempt a brief answer.
Who's deciding what is "alive" and what is not? Of course sperm and egg are living, as they are not dead. They are not distinct entities, but when they combine they become a thing that is distinct from either of its parents, and is still alive. Whether it goes on the develop properly, or whether it is viable outside the womb, is not the point. It is a living human thing that is not identical with either parent, which is the important distinction to those opposed to harvesting embryos/abortion/etc. Hysterical rant #1 dispatched.
Nobody in the anti-(abortion) camp is claiming that animals are not alive. Whether it is morally licit to eat animals is entirely beside the present point (we call this a "red herring"). Furthermore, many who are opposed to harvesting embryos/abortion/etc. are also opposed to capital punishment, war, and so on. Many are outright pacifists--agree with them or not, it is a consistent position.
I leave you with this: a consistent life ethic. Next time take a moment to breathe before launching your attack.
Ad hominems directed toward the parent aside, you misunderstand the argument one might make in respect of conception as the beginning of life, and have clouded the water with only marginally related (although interesting) questions regarding cloning and such.
Conception as the beginning of life follows a line of thinking something like this:
1) The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human thing. (of course, so is your arm or kidney)
2) This thing is not non-living, so it is a living thing. (whether it is independent has nothing to do with whether it is living--see arm/kidney)
3) This thing is genetically distinct from the parents. (as opposed to unique, as per your example of identical twins)
4) So the zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human thing that is not either parent.
Viability outside the womb, or relative completeness of development, is actually irrelevant. At conception, there is a living human thing that is distinct from, and hence not identical to, its parents. The question is whether you think that living human thing has value. Most people think that other human living things have an inherent value, such that it is morally reprehensible to cause such a thing to cease to live (at least against its will, but that's another debate) or to harm it. Also irrelevant is the apparent dissonance in those people who believe that an unborn human living thing must be protected, while one that has been born can be justly killed.
The arbitrary and subjective line drawing enters when one attempts to differentiate between one living human thing and another based on something other than its nature: a living human thing. That nature does not change with stage of development, intelligence, impairment, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, political persuasion, age, criminal behavior and so on.
That's why this matters. It's easy to point at a petri dish and say "it's just a bunch of cells;" as others here have pointed out, the same is true of an adult living human thing. Distinguishing between the two cannot be a matter of mere rhetorical device.
Does anyone else in this room find it odd and unsettling that the very same people who are so against killing people before they're born are constantly requisitioning more funds from congress in order to kill people after they've been born? (well, very long after. And "those people" aren't "my people" so that makes it fair and just, doesn't it?)
I've heard this line of critique before, and am at least somewhat sympathetic considering the loudest mouths in American politics. All the same, bear in mind that there are many of us who are opposed to any and all forms of abortion who are also opposed to capital punishment, euthanasia, war... to violence and injustice in general.
Or, as some people I tend to agree with might put it, "life is a seamless garment."
Indeed. I would say that the religious who really take their religion seriously will tend to be none of the above. Those who rather use it as a justification for unrelated (and conflicting) ends will tend to be precisely all of the above.
I wonder who you think is qualified to decide when someone can take care of their children? Or who sets the standard of what "caring for them" looks like? Should it be enforced? Do we sterilize the poor so they don't have children which, in our opinions, they are not "capable of caring for?"
Seems to me some notable people grew up well below the presumably expected level of affluence necessary for being "cared for" properly (Abe Lincoln's three-walled cabin?). Calling their parents selfish imposes on them a whole system of values and thought foreign to the overwhelming majority of people on earth both now and throughout history.
Now this guy Art Bell, on the other hand...
I guess in some other countries, where bizzare murders and school/work shootings happen all the time and people are bored of it, people would rather hear about Angela Jolie and Brad Pitt.
After living in L.A. for the past year and watching the news fairly regularly, I'd have to say that's about right. It's either celebs or car chases.
"I would like to download some Metallica on Kazaa."
"My iPod is full of music which I did not purchase."
"I enjoy watching movies I got off Limewire." (yeah right, like I could actually get something decent off Limewire!)
"This latest hit single from Beyonce, which you hear playing in the background, has been obtained in ways not approved by the RIAA. So sue me."
"My entire mp3/ogg/wma collection is available on a peer-to-peer network for any virtual passers-by to peruse and download at will."
I don't know, "Talk Like a Pirate Day" sounds like more fun than it actually is, I guess.
wheat + chaff :)
Hey now, leave Thom Yorke out of this!
If the next breakthrough is 4-dimensional storage, can I retrieve files I accidentally deleted a few years ago?
Or can I store things back in time, and send notes to myself 10 years ago?
I don't know about that. Candide is perhaps the most biting, genius works of satire ever created, yet I don't think Voltaire had much affection for Gottfried Liebnitz (whose theodicy he was lampoons via the fictional philosopher Pangloss). Of course, maybe he did, and he was satirizing misapplications of Liebnitz?
Well, the divers can't land on you.
Crap, does this post count as prior art? Can I sue myself?
No, he's just waiting for someone to set him up the bomb...
"Orcs got bass, but we got BOOM!"
Why does this have to be divided along these lines? There are plenty of scientists across all disciplines who are both religious and intelligent, who give science its due and keep religion out of the results of experimentation. I believe in God (and happen to also be well-educated), but that in no way precludes my belief that evolution is, in fact, the way things happened (and continue to happen). My father-in-law is a respected geologist in the field of igneous petrology, a wonderful human being, and a devout Christian. His Christianity doesn't undermine his science or vice versa. My undergrad institution is a Christian liberal arts school, but the science classes exhibit scientific excellence, not dogmatic allegiance to a forgone conclusion.
Shrill, self-styled "iconoclast" Creationists/ID-ers by no means comprise the majority of Christianity. Most Christian denominations, in fact, teach that the book of Genesis is intended to teach about the character of God and God's relation to humanity, not science. For heaven's (and earth's!) sake, can we break out of this outdated generalization??
Obviously, I just threw out the application and have been using the anonymous card ever since.
Wouldn't that be our deep earth underlords?
A side note in the main story involved personalized advertizing on every surface imaginable, from the walls to the bar counter, all addressing the characters by name and annoying the hell out of them. I believe the story revolved around a team of geeks installing next-gen super-duper-high-speed untrackable networks (in trees at one point) while being literally attacked by government agents for breaking some trade rules. It was great.
Related, there was another story by I think the same author about a couple of guys who were part of a government "body hacking" experiment, whereby they could control their bodies' healing and such using a PDA attached to a port installed in their neck (quasi-Matrix-style... sorta). They escaped the lab, were eventually caught, and the story ended with one of them getting off of a plane in Africa to escape the US government, stolen laptop and interfacing cables in hand. Again, fantastic short story.
Anyone know the author?
Oh, but I am!
Whoa, sudden craving. Must have Twinkie. BRB...