The Day the Music Died

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 16, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the age of on-line entertainment and instant information it was, perhaps, possible to live without knowing about the carnage going on around us, but the video of evolutionist Deborah Nucatola casually and callously explaining the crushing of innocent babies and harvesting their young bodies leaves us forever without excuse. Between gulps of red wine and bites of salad we learn that “a lot of people want liver” and that “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver …” We are also told how to play games with the law so the harvesting of human body parts can proceed efficiently: Read more

Comments

I look fondly on ad hominems.Mung_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Of much more importance than considering Zachriel's far-fetched scenario, one that we will never find ourselves in, is how to end the ongoing holocaust of innocent human life. What would be helpful in that regard is considering a scenario many couples, whether they know it or not, are actually facing: They have the opportunity to save newly conceived human lives by not using versions of "the pill" that are sometimes abortifacient, preventing the newly conceived child from implanting in the womb. I am not sure there is a safe version of the pill; I am assuming here that those who respect human life from its conception, if they are using artificial contraception, would want to find out if whatever means they are using sometimes acts as an abortifacient, and would want to know that "the pill" can be an abortifacient. If they are Christians, they probably also want to ask themselves if they are remaining open to God's plan for populating Heaven with their descendants. The reason such considerations would be helpful in ending the ongoing holocaust of innocent human life is that widespread use of artificial contraception was the beginning of what has ended in society's complete rejection of God's plan for human sexuality; sex has become, for the most part, a matter of recreation, not procreation. This mentality led to "legal" child-killing (a "baby" wasn't supposed to be the result of our recreation, so it becomes a "mistake" to be erased), and same-sex marriage (if heterosexual couples can enjoy sexual activity artificially disconnected from procreation, why shouldn't barren homosexual unions be called a "marriage," too?). The rejection of artificial contraception is the beginning of loosening the garrote the rejection of God's plan for human sexuality has become for humanity. Enough of Zachriel's endless gainsaying and sophistry. We shouldn't let one who won't even admit there is such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong entertain himself this way. Would Zachriel explicitly admit that Nazi genocide was objectively wrong? If so, then I can only hope he would explain the principles upon which he bases that conviction. We could then have a real discussion with him about how those principles might apply in other areas. If not, then ... well ... I suspected as much.harry_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

StephenB: To defend your position the last time, you wrote the opposite. To quote Silver Asiatic, "The fact that all humans die does not take away from the marvels of engineering we can observe in them." In any case, you made your position clear. You would save the vat of blastocysts first. Presumably, you are against in vitro fertilization as it puts blastocysts at extraordinary risk. StephenB: If you are fond of all varieties of hominins, why do you not defend the fetuses’ right to live? Actually, we look fondly upon the promise of expectant human babies.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
We’re rather fond of the hominins, of all varieties.
If you are fond of all varieties of hominins, then why do you support abortion?StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

StephenB, There is still a way to save all- the baby and the embryos. Grab the baby, put it into your shirt and go get the embryos and incubator. Our opponents are too dim to think of such a plan. And they are not athletic enough to pull it off. I know that I am. :cool:Virgil Cain_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

jcfrk101: So do you think that the fact that most people will chose their child over another persons child justifies murdering the other child? Most people value children highly, so not sure why you think one would justify the other. Assigning a higher value to your own child doesn't mean you assign a negative value to other children. jcfrk101: Does my choice to save what is more valuable to me have any effect on the intrinsic worth of the other child? Saving your own child doesn't devalue the other child, but it does show that you value your own child higher. Zachriel: virtually no one would try to save their own frozen blastocyst before saving a living baby. jcfrk101: Yes I would. Most people would consider that monstrous.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

StephenB: I would save it first because I know that it will likely live decades after I save it. I don’t have that same assurance with the embryos. As already mentioned, out of a thousand blastocysts, scores likely will live full and productive lives. StephenB: If I did have that assurance, that is, if I knew they would be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born, I would save them first since saving a thousand lives is better than saving one. Thank you for the direct answer. Zachriel: Actually, the Nazis claimed objective reasons for hating the Jews. You might want to review your history. StephenB: We are discussing your subjective values, according to which those whom you don’t like may be justifiably killed and those whom you do like may be justifiably spared. You were the one who brought up the Nazis. In any case, if someone has no affection for humans, then they would probably not work for their benefit without some benefit in exchange. If someone hates humans, then presumably they will work against them. StephenB: If those are not your values, this would be a good time to correct the record. We're rather fond of the hominins, of all varieties. StephenB: Earlier, you wrote, “We’re just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby.” That's right. They do. You will notice that people don't adopt blastocysts, but do donate them. StephenB: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. We haven't taken that position. StephenB: Hopefully, I have made it clear that this is not true. StephenB barely makes it out of the fire with the vat. He tries to explain to the gathering people why he chose to save the vat of blastocysts first, leaving the baby.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Zachriel So do you think that the fact that most people will chose their child over another persons child justifies murdering the other child? Does my choice to save what is more valuable to me have any effect on the intrinsic worth of the other child? The problem with your scenario is that it cannot prove that intrinsic worth of an embryo is less than a born child, only that it is not greater than that of a born child. Given two being of identical intrinsic worth, most humans will default to relative worth given that intrinsic worth is identical. "no one would try to save their own frozen blastocyst before saving a living baby." Yes I would.jcfrk101_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I would just save myself. And any Zachriels I could find.Mung_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Virgil Cain
StephenB- You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider.
Obviously, that would be the best solution. Gather up our resources and save them all. We both agree on that. Under those circumstances, there is no dilemma. The question, though, is about what we would do if the best solution is not possible. The pro-abortion enthusiasts are trying to show that we (you, harry, and I), like they, value a baby more than a developed fetus, and a developed fetus more than a zygote. They think, mistakenly that if, for any reason, or under any circumstances, we would rescue a baby before we would rescue a vat of frozen embryos, it means that we value the former more than the latter--in spite of our claims to the contrary. Hopefully, I have made it clear that this is not true. There are many reasons for making such a choice. A fireman must often save one person at a time. That doesn't mean he places more value on the lives of the first ones rescued. Zachiel's argument is simply a bad argument.StephenB_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
ISIS kills lots of non-Christians too, all under the justification of moral law.
Islamists do not believe in the "natural moral law." That is one of the reasons they are so irrational. They have a perverse notion of "Divine Law," but that is another story.StephenB_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
If they were of equal moral value, you would save the blastocysts first.
No, that isn't true. I wouldn't save the baby first because it is of more value. I would save it first because I know that it will likely live decades after I save it. I don't have that same assurance with the embryos. If I did have that assurance, that is, if I knew they would be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born, I would save them first since saving a thousand lives is better than saving one. The life of each embryo is equally valuable compared to the life of the baby. That doesn't mean that its chances for survival are also equal. The moral calculation is that everyone deserves to be saved at the same time. The strategic decision is about what to do if the best moral solution is not possible. You are still not grasping the difference between morality and strategy. SB: They followed your philosophy of subjective value.
Actually, the Nazis claimed objective reasons for hating the Jews. You might want to review your history.
We are discussing your subjective values, according to which those whom you don't like may be justifiably killed and those whom you do like may be justifiably spared. If those are not your values, this would be a good time to correct the record. StephenB: Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed …
We haven’t staked out that position. Rather, we have pointed out that there are areas of gray that you clearly see, but refuse to acknowledge.
Earlier, you wrote, "We’re just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby." You seem to be saying here that moral value can be determined by how far along in the developmental process the human has advanced. Since the embryo is not "fully developed," you feel that it may be justifiably killed. If so, would you also justify the killing of a two-year-old child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed? Meanwhile, you continue to avoid this question: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live?StephenB_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

velikovskys- If you read what I posted they both can be saved at the same time.Virgil Cain_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Virgil: StephenB- You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider. You still have to choose,which one first?velikovskys_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Again, you’re response is totally irrational. The Nazi’s were not “fond” of the Jews. That is why they killed them. ISIS is not fond of Christians, so they kill them. ISIS kills lots of non-Christians too, all under the justification of moral law.velikovskys_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

1bornagain77_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Frank Turek - Christ Community Church (April 2015) - video - (goal directed embryogenesis 27:10 minute mark) https://youtu.be/iKFfq-IwcrM?t=1629 "It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident...you have essentially lost your mind." Jay Homnick - senior editor of The American Spectator http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/to_have_a_view095041.htmlbornagain77_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB- You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider. And if Zachriel was in that position then Zachriel, the baby and the embryos are doomed. ;)Virgil Cain_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB: I cannot save both at the same time and must choose to save one first, and then the other later–otherwise both will die. And you choose to save the single baby first rather than thousands of blastocysts. If they were of equal moral value, you would save the blastocysts first. Now imagine you emerge from the fire with the vat, and while looking for an electrical outlet, you tell everyone the nature of your choice, fully expecting to be declared a hero. StephenB: (Also, the blastocysts are not “all doomed to die.” Some may be implanted. You don’t even comprehend your own question). Every human is doomed to die. StephenB: You are confusing morality with strategy. Not at all. The moral calculation and the strategy is clear. You choose to save the baby first rather than a thousand blastocysts. Of course you do. StephenB: They followed your philosophy of subjective value. Actually, the Nazis claimed objective reasons for hating the Jews. You might want to review your history. StephenB: Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed ... We haven't staked out that position. Rather, we have pointed out that there are areas of gray that you clearly see, but refuse to acknowledge.Zachriel_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
As pointed out above, they are all doomed to die. However, you choose to save the baby rather than the thousand blastocysts, even though of the thousand blastocysts, scores may live long and fruitful lives. Of course you do. Nearly everyone would, and most would consider it monstrous to do otherwise.
You still don't understand. I don't choose the baby rather than the blastocysts, that would be immoral and monstrous. I choose both. All human life has inherent value. That is a moral question. However, it is possible that, for strategic reasons, not moral reasons, I cannot save both at the same time and must choose to save one first, and then the other later--otherwise both will die. That is a question of strategy and prudence. (Also, the blastocysts are not "all doomed to die." Some may be implanted. You don't even comprehend your own question). It is no different from a fireman entering a burning building, knowing that two people are in separate rooms. If he doesn't choose to save one first, both will die. If he does choose to save one first, it is possible that both will live, since he may be able to come back and also save the second. It has nothing to do with choosing to save one rather than the other. You are confusing morality with strategy.
That’s right. The Nazis hated the Jews.
Precisely. They followed your philosophy of subjective value. They killed people they don't like and spared people they do like. Meanwhile, why are you running away from my questions: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed, do you also think it is reasonable to kill a two-year-old child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed?StephenB_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

jcfrk101: My point is about your hypothetical is that no one ever operates with absolute knowledge The thought-experiment doesn't require absolute knowledge, or even extraordinary knowledge. It's a simple situation. You can save the baby first, knowing the flames will soon engulf the building, or you can save the vat of embryos first. jcfrk101: if instead of children and embryos, there where 2 children, one of which is your own child, and the other is another persons child. Most people would save their own child first, as they give a higher value to their own children than to children not their own, but would no doubt hope to save both. ETA: However, virtually no one would try to save their own frozen blastocyst before saving a living baby. Would you?Zachriel_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

StephenB: The frozen embryos might not live after they are saved because they may not be implanted, not because I wouldn’t plug in the electrical outlet. As pointed out above, they are all doomed to die. However, you choose to save the baby rather than the thousand blastocysts, even though of the thousand blastocysts, scores may live long and fruitful lives. Of course you do. Nearly everyone would, and most would consider it monstrous to do otherwise. StephenB: The Nazi’s were not “fond” of the Jews. That's right. The Nazis hated the Jews.Zachriel_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.htmlEugen_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Zachriel My point is about your hypothetical is that no one ever operates with absolute knowledge, God alone is omniscient. There is no situation that I can think of in which a person would ever have such a high degree of knowledge. In either case I suppose for the sake of argument I will assume the question is valid. So to answer your question I would like to ask a question in response, if instead of children and embryos, there where 2 children, one of which is your own child, and the other is another persons child. You can only save one, whom do you save?jcfrk101_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

SB: [If I had to choose] I would save the baby since there is a good chance that the embryos in the frozen vat will die anyway even if I rescue them.
All you have to do is plug the vat into an electrical outlet.
Some of your responses are incredible. The frozen embryos might not live after they are saved because they may not be implanted, not because I wouldn't plug in the electrical outlet. Did you not read the words, "even if I rescue them." First, you demand that I make a choice between two alternatives, then you immediately start providing suggestions for how I might avoid making a choice. You really do struggle with rational thinking. If I had to make such a choice, it would be for the reason I gave, not because one human life is more valuable than another human life. All human life has inherent worth. The value of human life is not, as you claim, "subjective." So your attempt to show that pro-lifers value one human life over another fails. Your perceived challenge is no challenge at all. SB: A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person.”
The question is when a developing human acquires the moral status of a person.
No, that's another question. The question at the moment is whether the zygote is human. Try to follow the argument. Learn to make distinctions. It is all part of rational thinking.
Those who engage in black-and-white thinking can’t conceive of shades of gray, even when they themselves see shades of gray while squirming to avoid the implications of their own multi-toned sight. See below on incongruity.
Your response is totally irrational. Incongruity has nothing at all to do with the scientific question of when human life begins. SB: Since you think value is subjective, and since the Nazi’s assigned no subjective value to the lives of Jews, why would it be a problem if the former killed six million of the latter?
Sure it’s a problem. As we said, we’re rather fond of humans — even if they are white on the right side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7
Again, you're response is totally irrational. The Nazi's were not "fond" of the Jews. That is why they killed them. ISIS is not fond of Christians, so they kill them. That is the point I am dramatizing. You think that its OK to spare people that you are fond of and kill people that you are not fond of. If someone was not "fond" of you, would it be acceptable for them to take your life for that reason? Meanwhile, you are running away from my other questions: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed, do you also think it is reasonable to kill a two-year-old child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed?StephenB_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Zygote "the first cell of a new organism " lets remember human organism http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/everything/zygote03.html Our abortionist "humanist" friends here like to promote rights for anyone and anything but their hypocrisy seems to prevent them from promoting rights of a new human organism. Abortionist sus domesticus!Eugen_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Stealing from God: Atheists Presuppose God for Morality | Frank Turek, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxBxDMTzjMbornagain77_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Stephen: So, when the Nazi’s had the legal right to kill Jews, they didn’t have to justify anything? That is your argument? Nazis violated international law, they were bound legally to observe.Do you have a similar law? The willfull killing of an of an unborn child is always unlawful insofar as it violates the moral law. Always? If the state’s civil laws do not recognize the moral law against murder, then the state is guilty of murder. Criminal law proscribes murder. Is refusal to donate your kidney murder is the person dies?velikovskys_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Zachriel is quite happy with the crushing to death of innocent lives for the good it can do........ Amazing.... What is good in the absence of an ultimate good Zach? Where do you derive your sense of good from?Andre_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Zach,
so is murder OK with you as long as it is done in the name of ‘science’? zach: "No"
And since even you yourself, given your materialistic premises, are not really a 'person' but merely a 'neuronal illusion' exactly how do you provide a foundation for your stated ethic of 'Thou shalt not murder' in the name of science? (or in the name of anything else?)
Hitler's murderous obsession to annihilate the Jews Excerpt: The introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws in 1935 saw Jews declared non-persons, stripped of their rights, robbed of their property and isolated. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399798/Hitlers-murderous-obsession-to-annihilate-the-Jews.html in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal "right to life." http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc35.htm
As stated previously, 'person-hood' is not a concept that materialism can accommodate, thus it is impossible for the atheistic materialist to develop a coherent moral ethic on murder or anything else:
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014 Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11
Thus Zach, when you state you do not support murder in the name of science, exactly who this 'you' that you are referring to that objects to murder? i.e. There is no 'you', no real person named Zach, in your worldview! If you want to come over to my basement to debate the finer details of 'personhood', I would be glad to have you over:
Cruel Logic - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9A-c8bsjc
bornagain77_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply