Very true.
Religious and cultural differences are more likely to be the cause of conflict.
In WW2 the British army was multi-racial and fought against a German army of very similar racial origin to the British.
In Northern Ireland... same race, different religion.
I don't think race has much to do with it. Religion is the evil that drives so much conflict, along with competition for resources and differing political philosophies.

I understand the theory, but I have a theory of my own, there are different sub-races of human, which is just easier to call race's as that is how everyone knows them currently. But I am not talking about the colour of somones skin, I am talking about the genetic difference that make the different sub-races of human - we know the differences, and we know that genetically they are tiny, but they are still there.



But it still has some effect, some people simply cant see past the colour of someones skin, some people can see past the colour of somones skin, but then cant see past the social differences, and yes to a degree that does include me specifically when they are religious differences dressed up as social differences for the detriment of some groups of people.



Yes it is, and it is specifically religion that has driven most of the civil wars in recent history including Iraq, Bosnia/Serbia and some of the wars in Africa, pretty much the rest is as you say.


Andy

Hi Andy,

You cannot tell what "race" (or "sub-race") a person is by looking at their genes.

Not yet, but there are numerous genetic differences between people of different races if you only look at one area, disease, many of these genetic mutations are very recent (less than 1,000 years). This does not reflect anything other than evolution at work right as we speak, these so called sub-races could be broken down into groups by disease resistence, specific inherent genetic faults that make some groups far more suceptable to specific diseases than others, by groups tollerance to alcohol or dairy products, or even by their ability to reproduce at high altitude, the list could go on forever.

And finally I would like to make a point of this as simply something to be aware of, but not to judge people by.


Andy

Well, I am not a religious person. but I can clearly see that there be a higher intelligence involved here, make of that as you please.



All races have different characteristics, of course. (the human race is a colourful one)

Sometimes those are unique, such as red and blonde hair and green/blue eyes, which are unique for white people for instance.


Genetic markers right there.


added
That being said: we all belong to the human race, of course, we all know that, but our differences should be celebrated!!!!not scorned, or downplayed or twisted just because its viewed to be "PC" to do so, "PC", which, by the way, is an invented phrase and a phrase that needs to be binned.

This is a very interesting sppech, its in 4 parts - highly reccomended.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell# ... ry73dzV35s

And it will put us back on track of Religion and not race that we seem to now be discussing, even though it was a simple side point in an earlier post.



I hope you will share with us one or more reasons, I still have not seen or heard a single compelling argument for the existance of God, and in fact the best argument I have ever heard for the existance of god fits neatly into every single gap that cant currently be explained by science. Please dont insult my inteligence by using that argument, simply by claiming that god was involved for everything we dont know has never held water, because literally millions of things that were explained by god have now been claimed by science - so on that basis it actually better explains some peoples aversion to knowlege by simply claiming that a higher power was responsible, so there is no need to find out the truth. I want humans beings to explain more, and remove more of these childish arguments for the existance of god.




Well said - but can we please move back to religion and away from race, they have very very little in common.


Andy

True, then again, religion has nothing more in common with this-higher-intelligence than race would religion either, which means that there's nothing for me to add.


You are all free to discuss religion and science as much as you want to, of course, but it will be without my participation.

I certainly understand if you simply dont want to be part of the discussion, but you have already made yourself part of the discussion, what is this "highter inteligence you speak of.?


Andy

No.
The parents are responsible for this. Liberal pussies have nothing to do with it. At all.
[I am blatantly copying remarks here from a stand up comedian, but it's easier to quote from a good explanation]

Children today are the same as we were. They were conceived the same way as we were, you might even say they are as atheist as we were, all things are the same.

We were taught there are boundaries to the things we do, as a child, by our parents. The freedom most of us had was slim - if we tried to cross it (and children always seek the boundaries, and most cross them once or twice), there was still a margin of safety left.

Nowadays, 14 year olds drink themselves into a coma. The freedom of movement for children has expanded hugely. Not because it's better for the children, but because parents don't have time to supervise, or because of so called new insights.
"Free upbringing" even involves children into decision making. A man didn't get a job in another city, where he could make 3 (!) times as much money, because his 11 year old daughter didn't want to leave her friends at school.

Double you tee eff.
They are not supposed to make decisions like that. You are the parent, they are the child. It's not a leveled conversation. You tell them what to do because you know what's good for them (or at the very least, you try). "But why...?..." - "Because I said so!" period.
You certainly don't expect school to see to their upbringing. Education, yes - upbringing, no. Not even if you don't have enough time to see to your child. It is your responsibility, not someone else's.
And certainly not liberal pussies. It is your child.



Absurd.
Pointing out a bruised apple levels you up? Maybe in a computer game.
If only it was that easy - a little respect gained from pointing out a bruised apple, really. If that's all they need to do...



Respect is not a trade commodity.
You don't respect someone because you expect something in return.
Respect, kindness, politeness are all altruistic traits.
You don't expect anything in return, but ofcourse it's nice if it happens.

Also, you are generalising by whatever group/box/label. This particular woman, had she been a Muslim, is being treated differently by you because of past experiences you had with people from that same group/box/label.

You can never do that. This brings me again to:

To be more precise: you respect all people until you have reason not to.
This doesn't mean: you respect all groups of people until you have reason not to.


Have you had bad experiences with blue eyed people in the past? Was the old woman with the trolley bag blue eyed?
Did you have bad experiences with red haired people in the past? Or with tattoos, or freckles, or with glasses?
Where do you draw the line?

You can label groups of people by hundreds of categories. And they are all arbitrary.
The only thing you can do is respect every individual until proven otherwise. And not: respect every group of people until proven otherwise.



Fear.
[entering devil's advocate mode]
If you start to act on it, and still be able to handle logic, the best option would be F.
Fear of what? Fear of not being able to beat them?
"If you can't beat them, join them". Once you have, you don't pose a threat to "them" anymore, and they won't pose a threat to you.
The best advice to people who are afraid of Muslims in general, and the Islam specifically, is become a Muslim. No more threat. Allah o akbar.
[/exit mode]



An atheist is someone without religion. The absence of religion.
Not someone who doesn't believe in "the right God(s)".
Someone believing in Thor (or any deity) can never be an atheist, from whichever frame of reference you are viewing it.



That should be "I am an atheist", period.



There will never be a terrorist labelled as an atheist extremist. Where is their "bible"? There are no set of rules, "thou shalt not...". Which ideologies are there to be extreme about?

You can never label a person by a characteristic they don't have.
Maybe he was a "non-voting extremist", a "non-biking extremist", or indeed a "non-religious extremist". The label is just non specific, and therefore can't be used to label someone.



For someone so fond of science to get to the truth, you seem in need for some further education.



You have posted countless comments like these. Don't you understand that religion, belief, is a leap of faith?
It doesn't have to be explained to those who believe. If it were, it would be called science, not religion.
The difference is, science needs to be proven, religion doesn't. In all these centuries, science has never been able to debunk religion by..., well..., by science. Because it doesn't work that way.

This person might as well be an agnostic, judging from the quote you reacted to.

Oh yes they have, they have made it illegal for parents to smack their own children, people have even been arrested for it, are you telling me that the parents put that law into place to stop them from smacking their own children - they didnt.

I would never suggest that parents have nothing to do with the upbringing of their children, and some parents are so bad at it they simply shouldnt be allowed to have them.



Are you telling me that if you had just picked up a bruised apple and you had not noticed but someone pointed it out to you, you would not respect them more.? - Also you seemed to miss out that important word "little", not a lot, but a little.



You obviously have not thought about the point deeply enough, think of something you cant see, and has no value to anyone else.



Yes possibly, I have already given good explanations as to why, and I am sorry that you cant see past that - a better question would be why did no one else offer to help the woman with her trolley, not the hypothetical why Andy might not have helped someone who might not have even said thank you.



I beg to differ, I can if I choose to.



I seem to remember writing a long paragraph all about stereotypes, please refer back to that. And again, yes I can, I can choose to give no one any respect at all for any reason, or I can choose to do the opposite, you seem to remember who's respect you are talking about, I have not forgotten that, and although I respect your ideals and opinions on the subject, but in this situation you are very unlikely to get me to change my mind. Only my own personal life experiences will change that.



No, no, yes, no, no, yes. You can reverse all of those answers as well except the second one. When it comes to generalisations about peoples behaviour, attitudes, levels of politeness etc they vary a great deal, but the generalisations you have just given are off the mark somewhat. How about people wearing muslim dress, goths, pissed teenagers, schoolkids, young families, old couples.

All of these groups will generally be quite different in their outward appearance, and they will all respond differently to the same question, of offer of help. From some you will get smiles and politeness, from others you will get verbal abuse, others will just ignore you. Which group are you MOST likely to offer assistance to, or ask directions or the time of day.?

I have met arseholes of all varieties, I have met rude people of all varieties, and until my life experiences of those "groups" of people changes then I will stick with what I know, and my instincts.



Yes, and both yes and no, some of it is concious, some is unconcious - most people cant even tell the difference.



As I have said, everyone starts with 50 out of 100 in my book, if everyone started at 100 out of 100 then people can only lose respect, is that what you do.?



I know you just said [entering devil's advocate mode] before that, but that is the single most stupid, pathetic, and worthless and self-hate filled thing I have heard anyone say for a very long time.



Athiest:-

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Not religion, religion is a different matter, so I say again, unless you believe in every single god that has ever existed you are an Atheist, so unless you believe in the existance of Thor you are an Atheist.



But people do all of the time, eco-terrorist for example, animal-rights terrorist, and my favourite, the label being used in the media all of the time right now - Muslim as a race of people - that is an interesting label, especially when mulims kill each other because they are not all the same.

Terrorism:-

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."



Fire away.



Leap of faith:-

"The act or an instance of believing or trusting in something intangible or incapable of being proved."

Have a look at my last response, I could possibly be considered to having taken a leap of faith myself on that point, why dont you steer my in the right direction.



No, it has not, and as I have said before, I can not possibly prove that god does not exist, in the same way I can not prove that faries do not exist. But that has nothing to do with the question, I simply wanted an answer to the mention of "this-higher-intelligence", what higher inteligence, he could have simply been referring to advanced Alien lifeforms.



Even more reason to ask, there was not the totally self assured I know god exists, and I know you cant prove otherwise, so I will carry on believeing in ghosts answer that is often recited.


Andy

I've only been slapped by my parents twice in my whole life. These I remember vividly. The other times might have been a tap on my hand which proves to be efficient to very young children, and causes no trauma of any kind.

Consider not all countries have the same (strict) laws as the UK, yet this problem of youngsters not having respect towards other people is seen in a lot of countries, not just in the UK. They can be seen in countries where a correcting tap is considered useful.
The liberal pussies in those countries therefore can't be responsible, the remaining factor are the parents. Note: there are ways to bring up children without taps or other types of physical corrections, not all people from former generations have been physically abused during childhood.



I wonder, if next time you walk in the supermarket, you remember the person who pointed out the bruised apple to you (assuming a reversed scenario from yours).
Perhaps you have photographic memory, and you're able to remember all the people who climbed and fell down on your ranking system, and how many respect points they have at that time.

It just sounds too elaborate to actually work.



Can you explain this a bit more detailed?



You can. I think you know what I meant though.
You are judging people and reacting from that judgement by whatever arbitrary category they belong to.
If you keep on doing this, you go past their individuality. Had the old woman been a Muslim, she still might have thanked you, even if your past experiences tell you that chance is slim.
Also, you make it very hard for this group of people to go up your respect ladder. By not even giving them a chance to react in a positive way, they will keep at the bottom of your ladder. Once they are below, let's say 25 respect points, they are beyond the point of no return, no matter how many kind Muslim women there are.

So I will keep to my "You don't respect someone because you expect something in return".



Some English football supporters have a name of turning interlands into riots. Some English tourists have a name of not being able to hold their liquor and turn to be quite obnoxious towards other people.
By your statement, football organisers and touristic countries are in their right to ban all the English, based on their past personal life experiences with these groups.

Good idea...?
Or should they judge each Englishman individually...?



The part in bold is exactly what I've been trying to say all along.

I've got no problem asking something or offering help to any of the groups you mention. Someone I know has the appearence of a cross between punk and goth, he's got tattoos, a mohawk and a lot of ironware in his face and I consider him one of the kindest people I know. To some he might seem daunting, but I've learned you can never judge a book by its cover.



Again, bold from me. You can't tell what their reaction will be from their appearance.



No, groups of people start out with 50 out of 100. Not people, as in individuals.

You said yourself, you probably might not have helped the old woman were she a Muslim. You would have just labelled her the number for the group of Muslims, not the 50 you should have, because it's doubtful you met her earlier, wouldn't you agree?



Self hate? heheh, sorry you missed the irony of that: the list judge56988 suggested just oozes fear. If I were as fearful as some people seem to be, this might be what I'd actually do it is stupid but not more so than the list.



There must not be any religious people left, only atheists. There are bound to be 1 or 2 gods forgotten over time...

You have things reversed. You only need to believe in 1 single god to not be an atheist. Atheist comes from atheos: "without god(s)" or "godless", so if you have 1, you stop being an atheist.


Seems pretty straight forward to me.



Again, a group of people will not be labelled "non-eco extremist" or "non animal rights terrorist". The absence of an ideology can not label a group of people as such. People get labelled by the ideologies they do have, not by ideologies they don't have. Atheists don't have religious ideologies.
Can you show me any rules or guidelines an atheist should adhere to, and which he could take to the extreme?



Has been discussed here earlier, sadly the thread has been deleted. You can google it.
Just the line "I understand the theory, but I have a theory of my own" is enough for me.




That's my reason for making my comment.
There is no evidence. No one, religious or not, is disputing that. Your question is meaningless because religious people don't need an answer to that in order to believe. That is the leap of faith.

Fear is an evolved protection mechanism, most animals seem to possess it - fearless people often end up dead before their time.
I used to do a lot of climbing and was not afraid of heights although I was afraid of falling - like most climbers I reduced the risk to an acceptable level by using ropes. Some people have an irrational fear of heights such that they are petrified even when there is absolutely no risk of falling. On the other hand a very few climbers seem to be fearless and will climb with no ropes, (for the 'buzz' or to test themselves?) most of them die young.

Rational fear and irrational fear - I would say that the state of Israel is right to have a rational fear of Iran, based on reported statements from the Iranian leadership. I would also say that the West as a whole is right to have a rational fear of terrorist attacks from Moslem extremists; based on recent events, but the fear of being taken over by Islam is currently an irrational one.
I think it's only prudent to plan for all eventualities and to protect oneself from current and potential risk, based on the perception of the risk, which was partly the reason for my list of different approaches.

What I fail to understand is why you think thousands of years of human competition and conflict can suddenly stop?

Children and especially teenagers these days in the UK really dont have any respect for anyone - themselves included, the parents cant be given all of the blame - most of it certainly. Teenagers dont respect their teachers or the police, and no-one has the authority to put them in their place for minor things, so being teenagers they keep on pushing the boundaries, too late there arent any left, this is where a big part of the problem is, they are teenagers, and there are no boundaries.



Some people, yes, you also forget the many associated things with this scenario, you are far more likely to have a meaningful conversation with that person - probably about food, and how long the queues are. In reality though you are right, it is likely to be short lived, but that is where many people fall down, they dont care about anyone else that they are unlikely to meet again - I do.



Like a compact watch full of springs and cogs.? Its amazing how people can make seemingly impossible things work.

Self gratification, if you help someone, and they say thanks, your body actually releases hormones and fires up the pleasure centre of your brain. You cant see it, you cant trade it, it has no value to anyone else, but that is the reason why humans help random strangers, they do it for themselves most of the time - and they dont even know whats going on behind the scenes.



I do, and it seems to be a fantastic ideal.



Possibly, but although stereotypes and life experience are very real, each case will still be taken on merit, mostly because the instant acting impulse to help our fellow mammals is innate and we have little control over it unless at that moment we are in the position to think about what we do before we act.



Answered above, even if we dont know we are.



True.



Some probably have, at least by restricting the amount of advertising to UK holiday companies and other non-direct measures. All of the English (British) people in those scenarios who have acted perfectly will also dislike those who have not, and try to distance themselves from the bad ones because everyone knows it will reflect badly on many who are innocent. But I cant blame other people for looking at me with a stereotype already in their mind, but I will try my best to change that stereotype by acting as a perfect human.



That is for them to decide.



I dont think that we really disagree on this point, we merely disagree on the finer points, and how we personally act in those situations.



I agree, I have had very few problems with people who look like your friend, but other people I know look at them differently, but only that persons life experiences can change that perception. I have never said that I will not/can not change the stereotypes I already have, and I certainly cant change my past life expreiences, I can only tell you what is current, the past has been different, and the future will be different.



Not specifically, that was the point of the paragraph of mine that you quoted, but my perception of that person by the groups I listed will vary from one group to the next.



Individuals start out with 50, my perceptions of groups will just affect my rational mind, which includes by choices that are controllable by me (vs my body), my willingness to interact, and possibly how rapidly my like/respect for that person goes up/down.



Exactly.



Well that was my point, I cant - no doubt others could, but not me.



Other people are allowed to believe in faries or god(s), so I give myself the right to believe in something that is science based, but currently neither proven, or un-proven.

This is similar to the whole climate change fiasco, yes I believe that we humans are changing the environment which will have devestating effects, but no I dont believe that CO2 is the only reason, there are many that have been sidetracked, even though they are actually much easier and quicker to fix, and significantly cheaper to do. So going back to my human sub-race theory that has been partly proven, I do believe that humans are a single species, but I do also believe that their are different sub-races that can not be identified from the outward appearance, and doing so would be foolish.



Some people make up pseudoscience and other total trash to meet the concept of god as a real entity, some people try to prove the existance of god by various means.

Others fall into the category of believing in something with no proof, and that seems to be OK to themselves, but it makes me wonder why they dont see a psychiatrist.

It does not look good one way or the other: The person who says that their farie helps them get through bad times = crazy, the person who says that their farie gives them comfort = crazy, The person who says that their farie tells them to kill their neighbour = crazy.

I dont see a possible good outcome for this even if that persons farie is totally harmless, its still a bizarre delusion, and I cant see that any delusion of that form is better than alternatives.

---

I have another funny one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nort ... 423407.stm

She was jailed for heresy for promoting womens rights, and is now on the road to being made a Saint by the same bunch of people who dont want female priests. This is as ridiculous and pathetic as the Catholic church gets.


Andy

a psychiatrist can't help you, they are insane…even more. most of them sought out the "profession" as a cry for help to begin with, but, there are no answers to be found there.

I know, I used to date a woman who was in the field, a total mess, sure, a nice mess, good looking, feminine, well dressed…aaall that, but still, a mess. In fact, she was so messed up that she felt she needed counseling herself, most of her colleges felt the very same way, meaning: they sought out and got counseling too, go figure.

Pseudoscience? yes. indeed.


feel free to view this post as comedy amidst the posts of enlightened sanity, or something.


It's all in good fun, andy.

Hi,

I just heard an interview of a man named Frank Schaeffer (on a NPR show called Here & Now), who has written a book that some of you may be interested in reading, titled "Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism)":

http://www.amazon.com/Patience-God-People-Religion-Atheism/dp/030681854X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261417638&sr=8-1

In a few hours you can listen to the interview, using the link I included above.

Interesting ...

This is fantastic news for the women of europe, I can only hope that Islamists dont cause to much violence, chaos, mayhem and murder, and then this fantasic freedom giving law spreads to other sensible countries in Europe and beyond.

Well done to the French, who have shown us that they are more secular than most of the rest of us, and can uphold freedoms in the face of threats and hostility.


Andy

This is fantastic news, all this needs is to go through the french parliment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8480161.stm

It does not go quite as far as I would have liked, a full public ban, but this might be even better, as it would not force the problem underground (people being forced to stay at home at all times). This is a more practical idea, that will liberate women a great deal.


Andy

I wonder how the UK compares.

What might be happening with the women affected ?
Will they have to stay at home constantly, like in a prison ?
Since they seem to have only very restricted human rights, are they going to be triple slaves now ?

Slave of their religion / slave of their husband / slave of the society.

I would also like to know that.



Do you mean currently.? to the women who have been forced to wear a disguise, or in the future in France where they will have to take them off when they go certain places.?



That is why I think that the French compromise is actually a good thing, because some of the prison wardens would not even let their prisoners leave the cells.

At least they will be allowed to leave the cell, but they cant use public transport, visit schools or other public offices in disguise. I hope that this will mean that fewer women are imprisoned, and that they learn that they really can take of their veils in public places without being raped.



The first is the fault of generation of parents, this is slowly being eroded by modern society, so long as arranged maraged are made illegal and actually upheld (they are usually not), and society is finally waking up to this, namely the French government with this proposed law.

Hopefully we will do the same in the UK, and then outlaw the "legal" Sharia courts in the UK - which are an utter disgrace, they literally devalue their femal clients, they have half the worth of a man and get crarged more - no doubt the slave owner thake them to the Sharia courts for that very reason - they can literally get away with anything, and the women are screwed and its perfectly legal - a national disgrace - I am ashamed to be British.


Andy

What are the correct numbers in next weeks lottery?

I only read bits and pieces of the discussion here, but arguments like the ones here remind me of something Richard Schiff said on The West Wing:


On an unrelated note, somewhere somebody mentioned abortion, as though it was a religious issue. For me, though, it's always been about whether an unborn child is a human being or not. [edit: I think so]

The problem is the definition of "a human being" will basically boil down to religion (as in "things we believe despite lack of proof") since we currently have no way of absolutely determining "humanity", and might never.

But that West wing quote is half of the problem, people do things their parents tell them to do from a young age, including covering up from head to toe all of the time, marrying someone they have never met etc etc, this law is the state playing liberator. I would fully agree with the above quote if the state was telling half of the population to hide constantly behind a sheet and a bit of mesh.



I dont, but then I do, it is all about time - At 2 of weeks after the start of pregnancy that "human" is less human than your earlobe, but people put pins into them all of the time. At 7-months you have most of a baby, that has a working nervous system, unless there was a dangerous chance of causing serious problems/death to the mother due to some kind of problem, or some kind of nasty debilitating problem with the foetus that future baby should stay where it is for a couple of months, be born, and hopefully have a happy and long life.

Somewhere in between those points, it is down to the doctors, they know far more about this subject than I do, and I know they will do the right thing - wheras a priest will tell you that the 1-month old bundle of cells is "human" - that is bullshit, there is a reasonable chance of miscarriage (3 out of 10 within the first 3-months), so by definition if god is happy to kill that many then the owner of the body who actually exists, lives and breathes should have that choice if they want to.

Basically it is down to what Qviri has already said - define "human", when it comes down to foetus's the defintition is not easy, most doctors agree that once the foetus has a working nervous system, they can feel pain - this is a defining point. Others say that its when they have a reasonable chance of being kept alive in hospital without any future health problems resulting from an early birth - which in Angola will be via natural birth, and in many first world countries can be at 7-months - but I will go with what the doctors say, even if they move the goalposts (so long as the goalposts have been moved for medical/ethical reasons and not because of religious mumbo-jumbo.

theer are various other factors involved, such as rape (I personally believe that they should never be allowed to keep it), ethical reasons including the future life of the baby/child/adult due to the parents position, ethical reasons including the ability of the parent(s) to even be able to bring up the child without becoming a serious burden on everyone else because it is their 9th child and they dont have a job or a partner, and so on.


Andy

Not sure what you mean here by "less human".

I disagree. More on that later.


I agree there should be some sort of consensus.
Genetically, a fetus is a human starting at conception. Heart and blood vessels start developing at around week 3, and brain activity is detectable at around week 4.
The start of brain activity, I think, is a much less arbitrary point than "when the baby can feel pain", or "before the second trimester".
After all, I could give an anesthetic to a child, or an adult for that matter, which would make them not feel any pain. Plus, there are some people (like my brother-in-law's karate instructor) whose nervous system never developed correctly, who feels no pain (good career choice, though).
And, I just can't come to terms, intellectually, with "this wasn't a person at 13 weeks and 2 days, but now that we're at 13 weeks and 3 days, it's turned into a human".

I think we're in agreement here...
My point is, as long as the state (meaning, the government) isn't enforcing laws based on the traditions, then people are free to decide what to do.

Although the human earlobe is not an area with a lot of pain receptors, it does have them, it also has nerves that transmit information to the brain etc, a 2-week old foetus has none of that at all, therefore if the sense of tough is a sign of being "alive" then your earlobe is more alive/human than a 2-week old foetus. Or taken from another angle, ants that you tread on every day are more alive/human than a 2-week old foetus.



I look forward to how you seem to think that priests have better knowlege of the human body than doctors and scientists.



there already is, and its written into law by most non religious countries where abortion is allowed. One country's opinion often differs from the next though.



That is a point with no merit, I have no doubt that "brain activity" could be detected in a day old maggot eating rotten flesh. Brain cells are cells just like any other, but to say that "activity" can be detected is worthless, it is still an un-organised bunch of cells, in the same way that the heart is still not a heart, but a bunch of un-organsised cells that can not operate.



Which is why the descision is so very difficult to make, if you looked back a couple of hundred years and said to someone "when is the foetus growing in that woman going to be classified "human"".

I expect that the doctors answer would be, when they are born. Now we have moved the goalposts by medical science, what we can achieve now would simply look like magic to someone from a couple of centuries ago, and it is only through medical science that we can make these descisions.


Andy

So, you're saying that sense of touch is what makes something "alive"? Because I have already covered why that's a bad argument.


You're misrepresenting my position here. Is that deliberate, or was I unclear? Probably the latter. My disagreement was with your comment that the "bundle of cells" isn't human. I covered some of the reasons in my earlier post.


I meant a general consensus (not law) about when human life begins. Again, maybe I needed a little more clarity...


Ok, how about this point - a baby has developed enough at 7 weeks that it can move spontaneously. That indicates some level of cognition.
Besides, I think my earlier point is still valid - I don't know (and neither do you) if the activity is organized or not. The brain activity may be unorganized at first, but science has shown that unborn babies eventually do have direct responses to outside stimuli (sound/light/prodding/etc.).
I don't know what you meant about the heart.


If the goalposts are to move, they're only going to move to an earlier post-conception date.
Andy, understand - I'm not trying to change your mind (honest).
The main point I was trying to make, was that I have reasons for being generally opposed to abortions, and those reasons are not motivated by religion.
Regards,
Joe

You have missed my point totally, a 2-week old foetus is just a bunch of cells, there is nothing "alive" about it, at that stage it is even less alive than a parasite, a tumor would be a better description. Again I will say - it is just a bunch of cells.



I must have missed your point - where was it. Also please refer to how a "tumor" is also not "human".



There is almost no chance that the entire planet will ever agree on this subject, whether by law or otherwise.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

This is just like god, just because someone wants it to be true does not automatically make it true. Please point me in the direction of your evidence, because I would love to read that.



I still disagree with your earlier point, and I know that foetus's are not fully developed until they are ready to come out, because that is how we have evolved. The baby that arrives is very far from fully opperational, there is a large chunk of skull missing, it cant see more than blur, it cant walk etc, we have evolved like this for a number of reasons, and a 7-week old foetus is still very far from being "human", which is why it is called a foetus.



This is the fundamental point I was talking about - at what point is that foetus capable of feeling pain, and has a brain that is functional to a degree where we would say no to an abortion.



Just like the brain, and many other organs that are groing in a foetus, the heart does not actually work at all for some time, and does not work correctly until later in the development of the foetus it rely's entirely on its host (mother) until the heart and other organs are working.



They already have on several occasions, and I have no problem with that so long as they are the right reasons, but a sensible line must be drawn and that is not as early as some people would like - such as 7-weeks.



I am glad to hear it, but you also have to avoid bullshit science, and meaningless "evidence".


Andy