The first thing they'll do is send evangelists to convert them.RedMenace said:
Never fear, I'm sure they'll come up with a "science" that explains [unborn, human] life isn't [human] life at all, just an unproven theory. Hard to keep a good [pro-choice advocate] down.RedMenace said:Never fear, I'm sure they'll come up with a "science" that explains Martian life isn't life at all, just an unproven theory. Hard to keep a good fundamentalist down.
My only point, really, is that people have a tendency on many fronts to define "human" life as they see fit to justify their goals, whether it was/is slave owners, terrorists, murderers, capital punishment proponents, or abortion proponents, etc.RedMenace said:this board, or any argument anywhere for that matter. Not sure what abortion has to do with the discussion, but if you were making a point, point of course conceded.
Just because I'm a Marxist doesn't mean I'm for abortion, by the way.
If we find life or fossils on Mars it certainly would raise a number of scientific questions, probably more than it would answer!TiJeanKerouac said:or one-cell bacteria or whatever and it had been there for billions and billions of years since back when Mars had water, wouldn't that say something if *evolution* to higher forms had never taken place?
Besides, who's to say *Earth* didn't *contaminate* Mars with simple life from meteors? Remember the Mars rock that landed here several years ago as a meteor? I assume that could go both ways.
But your right, you'll never convince the fundamentalists of anything regardless of what the facts are. It's belief to them, more important than facts.
I assume "etc." includes Libertarians. Slave owners, terrorists, murderers and <i>Libertarians</i> have a tendency on many fronts to define "human" life as they see fit to justify their goals.DougSloan said:. . .slave owners, terrorists, murderers, capital punishment proponents, or abortion proponents, etc.
I don't know about others, but my definition, personally, is probably about as broad as it can get, affording the greatest rights to life to as many as possible. This would prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life and prohibit capital punishment, for example. The point is, concering my definition, is that it excludes no one who is alive and originated from human DNA, essentially.czardonic said:I assume "etc." includes Libertarians. Slave owners, terrorists, murderers and <i>Libertarians</i> have a tendency on many fronts to define "human" life as they see fit to justify their goals.
I have heard countless people justify killing by claiming the condemned were less than human, or at least implying it.czardonic said:So what? You think that capital punishment advocates deny the humanity of the condemned? Or pro-choice advocates?
Even your broad definition prioritizes some lives over others: mothers over children. In that respect, you are in the same camp as the abortion proponents.
"literally not human" -- me neither, and that's not what I said. You have a way of ducking arguments by redefining that someone else said in more unreasonable terms that suit your position. Haven't you ever heard of someone attempt to justify capital punishment by calling the condemned something like "worthless scum," "an animal," or something like that? That's what I'm talking about. It would idiotic to attempt to "define" a grown man as "literally not human."czardonic said:I have never heard anyone argue that capital punishment is justifiable because the condemned are literally not human.
A mother chooses pregnancy. Why should her baby get the short end of the stick if things go awry? You just have a higher threshold for jeopardy than other abortion advocates.