Thread: Planned Parenthood Bombed

Austin still has to be assigned raving though for raving about the church ... his science is what is relative ... not his philosophy. So you can address preimplantation - to diminish value of life because a placenta is present with the organism? Basically if the organism had a pimple on its ass ... how would that make an organism not an organism?

So if the placenta is needed as part of growth ... what kind of organism would be missing it as part of its development? Only the ravings of the quickening could reach this conclusion. Ooops gottah stop that.

Originally Posted by michael h

Ok Let me show you how this is done .... relative to the quickening ... Austin misrepresented St. Thomas Aquinas's position on when life begins ... I was wrrr wrrrr wrrrr wrong. lmao

So I'll remove the quickening from play as much as I enjoyed it. This doesn't eliminate his philosophy that the placenta lessens the value before preimplantation:

'By an alternative system, an embryo
originates as a very small part of a preembryo,
and co-exists with the preembryo
as the latter differentiates into
placenta, etc, prior to becoming a fetus'
(p20).
On this basis of biological fact the
chapter on ethics can discuss the
attribution of 'personhood' and of
human rights to the pre-implantation
embryo.

My definitions stand as the same meaning.

Except the criteria they provide are different. But I guess that's another one of your fabrications: that there is just one universal definition of an organism.

Originally Posted by michael h

Austin still has to be assigned raving though for raving about the church ... his science is what is relative ... not his philosophy. So you can address preimplantation - to diminish value of life because a placenta is present with the organism? Basically if the organism had a pimple on its ass ... how would that make an organism not an organism?

Why should I address anything? Austin already told you how things are. That's what you asked for, a peer reviewed journal piece. I'll remind you of what you said before:

How are you qualified to help me reconsider my position of trusting current scientific knowledge?

At best your in a sociology class where the assignment is to convince someone to disregard rational thought and science. Whats your qualifications?

Originally Posted by michael h

So if the placenta is needed as part of growth ... what kind of organism would be missing it as part of its development? Only the ravings of the quickening could reach this conclusion. Ooops gottah stop that.

It's quite simple.

1. Your 3 definitions are different, while you claim they are the same and indeed that there is just one definition.

2. You asked for a peer reviewed piece and pretended to value the positions of qualified individuals, but when given such a piece, you stumbled around and foolishly tried to libel the writer.

3. You claim to not value my qualifications, but are now asking me to comment on the science of the above unjustly defamed (by you) individual.

Now please go and run around in your underwear as you babble inanities somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Slon

Except the criteria they provide are different. But I guess that's another one of your fabrications: that there is just one universal definition of an organism.



Why should I address anything? Austin already told you how things are. That's what you asked for, a peer reviewed journal piece. I'll remind you of what you said before:





It's quite simple.

1. Your 3 definitions are different, while you claim they are the same and indeed that there is just one definition.

2. You asked for a peer reviewed piece and pretended to value the positions of qualified individuals, but when given such a piece, you stumbled around and foolishly tried to libel the writer.

3. You claim to not value my qualifications, but are now asking me to comment on the science of the above unjustly defamed (by you) individual.

Now please go and run around in your underwear as you babble inanities somewhere else.

The definitions all describe the same thing the organism ... how inane is it that your still struggling with understanding them? The whole world understands the definitions, little children understand the definitions ... whats your excuse? So you defamed all of science what's your point? Do the facts change that Austin was wrong? Is his definition in the science books? No What did Austin do with St. Thomas?

Thats the importance of reading you presented Austin's BOOK ... and his position that the organism should be an organ is dismissed.

You cannot sling voodoo at science ... not Austin and not you. The understanding of the organism is universal ... so will you be chanting for a quickening?

When it comes down to it all those supposedly narrow minded scientists rejected Austin's philosophy. Funny how they stood up for science against church ravings. Why should they redefine the organism for an opinion and not science? It's insane voodoo ramblings.

Maybe we can pretend it was Austin's appreciation for sperm and eggs contributions to the zygote. Pretend because its not respect ... its desire to downplay the importance of the organism ... so he could do whatever research he pleased. Was he going to accord the eggs and sperm in his research with the respect life deserves? Of course not ... he just wanted to have some embryos to play with.

Originally Posted by michael h

When it comes down to it all those supposedly narrow minded scientists rejected Austin's philosophy. Funny how they stood up for science against church ravings. Why should they redefine the organism for an opinion and not science? It's insane voodoo ramblings.

Maybe we can pretend it was Austin's appreciation for sperm and eggs contributions to the zygote. Pretend because its not respect ... its desire to downplay the importance of the organism ... so he could do whatever research he pleased. Was he going to accord the eggs and sperm in his research with the respect life deserves? Of course not ... he just wanted to have some embryos to play with.

Just when did these scientists stand up for science against the churches' ravings?

Originally Posted by Lost Time

Just when did these scientists stand up for science against the churches' ravings?

Against church ravings ... not the churches ravings.

Originally Posted by michael h

The definitions all describe the same thing the organism ... how inane is it that your still struggling with understanding them? The whole world understands the definitions, little children understand the definitions ... whats your excuse? So you defamed all of science what's your point? Do the facts change that Austin was wrong? Is his definition in the science books? No What did Austin do with St. Thomas?

Thats the importance of reading you presented Austin's BOOK ... and his position that the organism should be an organ is dismissed.

You cannot sling voodoo at science ... not Austin and not you. The understanding of the organism is universal ... so will you be chanting for a quickening?

"any living structure, such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium, capable of growth and reproduction"

"A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently."

"an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being."

These three sentences are not the same. There is no reason to continue arguing with you.

Originally Posted by Slon

"any living structure, such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium, capable of growth and reproduction"

"A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently."

"an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being."

These three sentences are not the same. There is no reason to continue arguing with you.

They say the same thing ... consult a liberal in the forum.

Anyway the definitions haven't changed for Austin's philosophy ... which doesn't diminish his scientific accomplishments ... it just means he allowed emotions to influence his opinions, he stopped being a scientist for ulterior motives. He isn't the 1st and he won't be the last.

Originally Posted by michael h

Against church ravings ... not the churches ravings.

Fine, Answer the question please.

Originally Posted by Lost Time

Fine, Answer the question please.

Funny how they stood up for science against church ravings.

Do you have a problem with scientists following science principles, instead of peoples opinions? Austin a supposed scientist ... tried to redefine the organism as an organ ... in the case of zygotes. To do this he attacked St Thomas Aquinas and the churches views.

Science did not attempt to redefine the organism to please Austin's anti religious views.

Originally Posted by michael h

Do you have a problem with scientists following science principles, instead of peoples opinions? Austin a supposed scientist ... tried to redefine the organism as an organ ... in the case of zygotes. To do this he attacked St Thomas Aquinas and the churches views.

Science did not attempt to redefine the organism to please Austin's anti religious views.

No I don't, but I am not turning to Science to answer Metaphysical questions either. I understand your points, I was just looking for clarification of the quote about scientists. Additionally, I don't hold scientists in high regard just because of the title of scientist. Lastly, whether I or you like/dislike reasons by scientists for investigation isn't really the issue concerning the subject IMHO.

Originally Posted by Lost Time

No I don't, but I am not turning to Science to answer Metaphysical questions either. I understand your points, I was just looking for clarification of the quote about scientists. Additionally, I don't hold scientists in high regard just because of the title of scientist. Lastly, whether I or you like/dislike reasons by scientists for investigation isn't really the issue concerning the subject IMHO.

I don't hold scientists in high regard ... I hold scientists who earn respect in high regard. That wouldn't include shitholes who experiment on humans ... and this isn't a reference to this particular thread. Observe and report results. That's a scientist.

I'm not debating the metaphysical ... I'm debating the scientific description of the organism.