|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 22, 2009 15:43:34 GMT
Ube - you can't do twin studies with the same person No, but you can see how a set of genes work in separate situations. Like I said, it's not ideal but it's better than nothing. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 15:45:14 GMT
^ True.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 22, 2009 17:48:43 GMT
There is one thing which twins share and which separates them from most of us - a commom time in the mother's womb.
There certainly is more or less conscious development in there - for most it's between them, mother and the environment - for twins it's plus someone else.
And I gather that there is an influence for later development...
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 22, 2009 19:37:31 GMT
To be human is thus far more than merely to inherit a certain set of genetics. Interestingly enough, this is more or less exactly the basis for my justification of abortion. Feel free to go there if you want to, Elliot. ;D Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 22, 2009 19:50:53 GMT
That's really interesting.. and obviously incredibly disturbing. Hm, I don't want to give the impression that I don't realize the effect on children in these sorts of situations, I just don't believe it makes them any less human. Extremely severe cases of neglect or abuse are situations in which the home environment plays a major role in how the child turns out. I think I'm defining personality as different, possibly? Let me try again.. [Average, non-abusive] Parenting, for instance, does make a difference as it influences values, faith, politics, manners, and attitudes.. But those are different from the genetic personality traits. I think I might be explaining what I mean poorly? Let me know if that is the case. I tend to get stuck on very specific things and then people understand the things I say much differently than I intend. It really bothered me - "She was fragile and beautiful, but whatever makes a person human seemed somehow missing." What specifically do they mean by that? I don't understand how that is true. What do you see as being human? That's more specific to Flix.. I don't actually know if you can explain what the author meant by that, but I'm glomping onto you! Sorry. Dunno, fug. I think the author meant, emotion, empathy, connection on just the most basic levels (like eye contact). But then, autistic children with loving homes have the same problems. It's reversed there - nature trumps nurture. I'm a materialist. A human has human DNA. Brain-dead, sociopath, mutant, fetus, still human. I wasn't really trying to support EK, just thought it was an interesting related story.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 22, 2009 20:54:37 GMT
Dunno, fug. I think the author meant, emotion, empathy, connection on just the most basic levels (like eye contact). But then, autistic children with loving homes have the same problems. It's reversed there - nature trumps nurture. I'm a materialist. A human has human DNA. Brain-dead, sociopath, mutant, fetus, still human. I wasn't really trying to support EK, just thought it was an interesting related story. Okay, I feel the same way as you. I was starting to worry that there was something I wasn't getting about how most people see humanity.. Well, that still seems to be the case, but yes. I wasn't trying to imply that you were supporting or not.. just got a bit confused. However there are usually a lot of similarities between them that cannot be accounted for through their upbringing. Exactly! IT IS SO EXCITING. Well, Zee, I honestly CAN say otherwise... What studies do is provide more in the way of absolute proof - and that is the thing I cannot deny. Shedding more light is a whole other thing... Really? I don't know how you can get into that mindset, and I'm not only talking about this article. You really should research things more if you want your theories and articles to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it is just you stating the things you believe, which doesn't amount to much. That used to be okay hundreds of years ago, but technology has moved way beyond that being as relevant (By this, I mean that you have to have scientific studies backing your statements up more so than before). The studies do shed more light. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with these if you knew more about what you were saying. Until then, I'll keep responding with things learned from my study of science, specifically psychology. Actually, I'll do that as long as I'm on these forums, but that isn't the point. This is quite fun.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 20:58:51 GMT
To be human is thus far more than merely to inherit a certain set of genetics. Interestingly enough, this is more or less exactly the basis for my justification of abortion. Feel free to go there if you want to, Elliot. ;D Übereil Been over that so often it's pointless really, Ube. You know my arguments back to front and I know yours. I doubt you'll be convinced this time around either, will you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 22, 2009 21:03:06 GMT
Point me to your take on abortion, EK. I don't recall you weighing in on that.
I predict you create a phantom 'middle road' position that says we shouldn't draw lines or make decisions like that, everyone is equally right/wrong in different ways, thus no position is truly justified.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 21:08:08 GMT
Actually, Flix, you'd be wrong. I am vehemently anti-abortion, except in cases where the mother's life was endangered or some other very serious consideration was in play. But that's a whole other argument *** Zee - You may find this interesting and I trust you will see the relevance
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 23, 2009 5:41:19 GMT
There is one thing which twins share and which separates them from most of us - a commom time in the mother's womb. There certainly is more or less conscious development in there - for most it's between them, mother and the environment - for twins it's plus someone else. And I gather that there is an influence for later development... Yes, this is most certainly true. During those +-280 days in the womb, they still hear the same sounds from the outside World, consume the same nutrients, from the same source/host. The time in the womb has been proven scientifically to have a significant impact on the child, which is one of the many reasons that it's best if the mother has a safe, loving, peaceful environment. Well EK, I perceive that what you mean by "human" in this thread (and the thread title) is not the sense of human as in homo-sapien, but human in the psychological sense, the emotional sense, and for myself, I add the Spiritual sense (since this is not universally proven, or accepted, of course). In these above senses, yes, I agree, human is made, not born. Like the Chinese proverb: "It is not your fault if you are born poor, but it is your fault if you die poor." Of course, there are exceptions to this (such as the kid in Somalia who gets shot at a few days old, being born to a woman who has nothing material left and was raped by a soldier/rebel), but generally, this is so true. Granted, a lot has to do with our genes, but ultimately our environment, the people we grew up with, the things we did... Is what composes our memory, and our memory has almost undisputed authority over our behavior, since everything we can do, we had to learn, and thus have to remember. I quote another proverb: "We are the sum of our choices." Again, there are exceptions (most notably the people who didn't live beyond infancy), but the general statement applies to all of us (for the very reason I mentioned above: memory). For example: Napoleon Bonaparte was born of poor Italian immigrants to Corsica, and look what he became! And then look at his son, Napoleon II, who wasn't very bright... Generally, leaders (or humans in the sense EK means) are made, not born. With the exception being if you believe in pre-ordained destiny, Divine Right, fate... Which I'm sure many, if not most people believe in to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 23, 2009 8:19:28 GMT
For example: Napoleon Bonaparte was born of poor Italian immigrants to Corsica, and look what he became! And then look at his son, Napoleon II, who wasn't very bright...
*Ahem* Napoleon (*1769) was not 'born of Italian immigrants' - Corsica belonged to Italy until 1768 (when they sold it to France!).
And he certainly was the brightest (and most ambitious) of his many siblings - so an exception already within his family.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 23, 2009 8:45:12 GMT
Been over that so often it's pointless really, Ube. You know my arguments back to front and I know yours. I doubt you'll be convinced this time around either, will you? ;D Not very likely. On another forum there was this 2000 page discussion on abortion and ever since I've lost my interest in that debate. My arguments are flawless (stop laughing!) enough that I don't really feel the need to go over them again to see if they really are correct. I just found it interesting that you're basically saying what I've been saying to justify abortion. "There's more to being human than having human DNA". It's interesting that we agree to this point (...unless I botched my intelligence-academics roll), yet are so far apart when it comes to abortion. ... in case Flix is interested in MY position on abortion, I'll post a short summary here! ;D The most common argument against abortion is the following: 1: Killing a human being is wrong. 2: A fetus is a human being (it has human DNA). 3: Ergo, killing a fetus is wrong. How do you prove this wrong? You either show that killing humans is wrong or that fetuses aren't human. Like we've been saying in the thread, if you don't speak in a purely bioligical sence, there's more to being human than having human DNA. I don't think it's our DNA that makes us special, it's our ability to precieve the world. A fetus doesn't have any of that, it only have human DNA. So, in the important sence, a fetus isn't human. Therefore you can't use the logic I mentioned to justify that Abortion is wrong. Alternativly there's this logic: 1: Killing a fly isn't wrong. 2: A fetus doesn't have anything important that a fly doesn't have. 3: Therefore, killing a fetus is right. This rests on the idea that it isn't the human DNA that's important about humans. Elliot woulld argue that point 2 is invalid since the fetus has the potential to grow up to be a full human being. I don't think you can say potential matters though, because that means we have to spend all our time having unprotected sex in order not to deny any future human being it's potential. Elliot (and basically every other anti-abortionist I've spoken to) disagrees with that argument. ;D So yeah, that was the short summary. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 23, 2009 9:16:04 GMT
That's pretty much where our similarities and differences are, Ube, yes.
***
I actually find it quite bizarre that the same argument used against the use of the death penalty by many is that used for abortion (Though NOT by Ube, please note!). to wit: 'no innocent person should be destroyed because of something another did' and 'who can know what a person may become? Today's murderer may save many lives tomorrow, if given the chance to change'.
Yet when it comes to a child, some arbitrary cut off date is decided before which it is apparently OK to kill it because of the actions of others and with no regard to what the child may become.
To me, it's also deeply insulting to women to say that they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions and so must have a get-out clause. I've talked to a large number of women over the years and I can honestly say I have never found them to be any stupider nor less capable of accepting responsibility for their own actions than men.
Granted, some may take that as damning with faint praise... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 23, 2009 10:01:37 GMT
To me, it's also deeply insulting to women to say that they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions and so must have a get-out clause. I've talked to a large number of women over the years and I can honestly say I have never found them to be any stupider nor less capable of accepting responsibility for their own actions than men. The problem in this case isn't that they're less able than men to take responsibility, the problem is that in a case like this the woman has got a much bigger problem. I personally find it unfair to women to expect them to deal with unwanted pregnancy the way men deal with... sex. The problem men deals with is much smaller, so of course they'll have a much easier time taking responsibility for it. It's like taking care of a country in Europa Universalis compared to taking care of a real country, sort of. ...This is me not debating abortion by the way. But it's cool, now we're getting into the whole "personal responsibility" debate which is it's own discussion. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 23, 2009 10:23:26 GMT
Personally I think that unless everyone is locked into chastity from the moment they reach puberty, and when they get married, their belts are "keyed" to each other. We are going to continue to need things like abortion and the morning after pill, because it doesn't matter how many forms of non-permanent contraception you use, there will always be a chance of pregnancy - And abstinence isn't a contraceptive as far as I'm concerned, as you can't use it while you're having sex.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 23, 2009 10:36:01 GMT
To me, it's also deeply insulting to women to say that they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions and so must have a get-out clause. I've talked to a large number of women over the years and I can honestly say I have never found them to be any stupider nor less capable of accepting responsibility for their own actions than men. Granted, some may take that as damning with faint praise... ;D Why do you insist on breaking my brain, Elliot? Ahhh. It isn't about not taking responsibility for their own actions (since abortion is taking responsibility - I can't support a child right now, etc), it's about the fact that a woman is stuck with the baby while a man really isn't. A man can have as much sex as he pleases without worrying about life suddenly growing inside him. I really don't get people who use responsibility in arguing against abortions. It bothers me SO much. It is taking responsibility! It is realizing that at this current point in your life, you are not fit to raise a child - Maybe you aren't emotionally or financially stable enough. How is that not taking responsibility? Why bring a child into this world when you know you couldn't care properly for it? I understand people who are against abortion, I only start having problems when they wish to make abortion illegal. You cannot support making it illegal without being incredibly sexist. I wouldn't even consider that arguing about abortion. I hate this debate, it is always there. But the responsibility thing bothers me to a scary extent, especially when it is coming from a male who has absolutely no idea. It just makes me die inside when it comes from a female.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 23, 2009 11:20:29 GMT
For example: Napoleon Bonaparte was born of poor Italian immigrants to Corsica, and look what he became! And then look at his son, Napoleon II, who wasn't very bright... *Ahem* Napoleon (*1769) was not 'born of Italian immigrants' - Corsica belonged to Italy until 1768 (when they sold it to France!). And he certainly was the brightest (and most ambitious) of his many siblings - so an exception already within his family. Ah yes, of course. My mistake. But yeah, you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 23, 2009 12:13:20 GMT
I hate this debate, it is always there. You should move to Sweden. That debate is quite rare here. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 23, 2009 12:24:25 GMT
I don't INSIST on breaking your brain, Zee! You just seem to like it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 23, 2009 15:46:50 GMT
He does it to all of us sooner or later, btw...
|
|