Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 19, 2019 6:58:04 GMT -8
Wasn't you specifically, Dave. In general, it seems as though God's will / nature and science are in conflict with each other by definition.
|
|
slk230
Contributor
Skeptical
Posts: 42
|
Post by slk230 on Sept 19, 2019 6:59:29 GMT -8
Dave.....God?  Mom an dad created me and in their image. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 19, 2019 7:49:22 GMT -8
Wasn't you specifically, Dave. In general, it seems as though God's will / nature and science are in conflict with each other by definition. Only to us mere mortals and our limited understanding: in truth, God’s will and Science are in complete harmony... |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 19, 2019 16:53:57 GMT -8
(1) To prevent this kind of thing is the reason God invented menopause. Let's see how long this post lasts. God also invented astigmatism...yet we regularly give people glasses to correct God's handiwork...I suspect you see no ethical violations there. Wearing glasses does not pass on potential genetic defects to another living being nor does it force another human being to be raised by people who really can't do the job effectively. Kind of like when gay couples buy a kid or two and call them their children, the youngsters suffer being raised in a single sex household all because the adults "really wanted children". |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 19, 2019 18:31:16 GMT -8
Was my response was serious and genuine??? Surely you jest. Your response is from the "Dark Ages". What next if "God" had wanted us travel in cars we would be born with wheels instead of legs??? Isn't all of medicine messing with nature? There have been thousands of healthy babies born by other methods than as you put it "humping". I still can't tell. I think your responses are tongue in cheek, for they exhibit illogical comparisons and drift off target, much like liberals do when they discuss topics. Are you doing some kind of performance art?. Traveling in cars does not bring new life into this world, unless someone else is driving and you are in the backseat getting busy. Nature really doesn't care how we get about from one place to the other. Medicine messes with nature by attempting to make unhealthy or defective humans better, in order to extend their life. Again, medicine in & of itself does not bring new life into this world. Using medical techniques to bring new life into the world by humans who can not do so in a natural way weakens the species. Part of natural selection & survival of the fittest is nature stopping some members of a species from reproducing and weakening the gene pool of the group. By the way, I never mentioned God in either of my posts, I'm not sure why you decided to include it in your silly car analogy. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 19, 2019 21:57:01 GMT -8
RSM789 said: I can't tell if that response is serious or if you are playing liberal devils advocate (i don't mean that offensively). I'll answer it as if it was a genuine response. To me, how they get pregnant is extremely important. Not being able to conceive via intercourse is often natures way of protecting a species, of making sure certain genetic negatives are not passed on to future generations. In vitro fertilization bypasses that natural selection process and allows genes that normally would not be passed to to stay in the genetic pool. A child is not a possession, so "wanting" one is an irrelevant emotion. =============================================================================== Was my response was serious and genuine??? Surely you jest. Your response is from the "Dark Ages". What next if "God" had wanted us travel in cars we would be born with wheels instead of legs??? Isn't all of medicine messing with nature? There have been thousands of healthy babies born by other methods than as you put it "humping". Medicine isn't "messing with nature." Medicine attempts to correct defects in nature. The woman who is the subject of this post (that I started) had no defect of nature. Nature's design is that beyond a certain age she can longer conceive, which is good for her health and that of her potential offspring. Now if she had been, say, a 36-year-old woman who was having problems conceiving because of ovarian cysts and then had those surgically treated so that she could conceive, I would have no problem with that. That's medicine. What the doctors did for this 72-year-old woman is an abuse of their professional training. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 19, 2019 22:11:01 GMT -8
Your response is from the "Dark Ages". Isn't all of medicine messing with nature? Correct on both counts. Well said. I would imagine that every single person who objected to the elderly having this baby in this thread at some point in there life has had some sort of common medical procedure to correct some medical deficiency or congenital defect. Actually, this was incorrect on both counts--as is your own analogy. This woman underwent no "common medical procedure." In a 2016 document, the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discouraged physicians from “providing donor oocytes or embryos to women over 55 years of age, even when they have no underlying medical problems.”
The committee cited concerns around maternal and fetal safety, longevity and “the need for adequate psychosocial supports for raising a child to adulthood.” (see the link on the original story) Nor did she have a "medical deficiency" or "congenital defect." She had passed menopause. As for those "Dark Ages"........ |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 20, 2019 3:15:11 GMT -8
This woman underwent no "common medical procedure." Well, neither of us knows how common the procedure is today, but it is becoming more common.Nor did she have a "medical deficiency" or "congenital defect." She had passed menopause. Her medical deficiency was her inability to conceive children prior to having this procedure, and prior to experiencing menopause...but you knew that. As to your comment about the "Dark Ages", if it makes you feel better about your ideas let's call them medieval. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 20, 2019 3:20:57 GMT -8
Was my response was serious and genuine??? Surely you jest. Your response is from the "Dark Ages". What next if "God" had wanted us travel in cars we would be born with wheels instead of legs??? Isn't all of medicine messing with nature? There have been thousands of healthy babies born by other methods than as you put it "humping". Nature really doesn't care how we get about from one place to the other. Nature also doesn't care how you become pregnant.Using medical techniques to bring new life into the world by humans who can not do so in a natural way weakens the species. Part of natural selection & survival of the fittest is nature stopping some members of a species from reproducing and weakening the gene pool of the group. So your argument is based on Eugenics. Perhaps you might want to look into the history of such ideas. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 20, 2019 10:00:43 GMT -8
Nature really doesn't care how we get about from one place to the other. Nature also doesn't care how you become pregnant.Using medical techniques to bring new life into the world by humans who can not do so in a natural way weakens the species. Part of natural selection & survival of the fittest is nature stopping some members of a species from reproducing and weakening the gene pool of the group.So your argument is based on Eugenics. Perhaps you might want to look into the history of such ideas. There is nothing so snarky as a gay liberal starting a sentence with "perhaps you might...". Nature does care how you get pregnant. Nature prefers monogamous relationships between humans, shown by the diseases that can occur when a person has relations with numerous partners (note I am not making a moral judgement, just describing how nature works). Nature doesn't want woman past a certain age to have children, it sets up roadblocks from having that occur. Nature may not always have the best results, but it does have a plan. You have a real misunderstanding of natural selection versus Eugenics. Eugenics is man driven, decisions being made by humans as far as reproduction as opposed to letting nature take its course. In vitro fertilization is actually more in line with Eugenics because it is using mans choice in place of natures choice. This is the second topic where you have made a claim that turned out to be 100% incorrect (the other was that a majority of gun deaths aren't self inflicted). The honorable & intelligent thing to do when making such errors is to acknowledge them and then retract your argument. I have some doubts that you have the self confidence to admit your errors. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 20, 2019 12:45:08 GMT -8
Nature does care how you get pregnant. Nature prefers monogamous relationships between humans, shown by the diseases that can occur when a person has relations with numerous partners (note I am not making a moral judgement, just describing how nature works). Nature doesn't want woman past a certain age to have children, it sets up roadblocks from having that occur. Nature may not always have the best results, but it does have a plan. The fact that you speak about what nature "wants" and nature's "plan" indicates to me that we don't share a common reality on which to converse.You have a real misunderstanding of natural selection versus Eugenics. No, I don't...and that's not the subject here. I understand that Eugenics is driven by the idea that there is some sort of criteria whereby people can be judged to be "inferior" or "defective" and I find such ideas odious. You apparently are quite comfortable deciding what nature "wants" and what it doesn't want. Be careful, or someone might decide nature didn't want you.This is the second topic where you have made a claim that turned out to be 100% incorrect (the other was that a majority of gun deaths aren't self inflicted). The honorable & intelligent thing to do when making such errors is to acknowledge them and then retract your argument. I have some doubts that you have the self confidence to admit your error. I was wrong. It wouldn't do for you to have any doubts. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 20, 2019 12:55:18 GMT -8
The fact that you speak about what nature "wants" and nature's "plan" indicates to me that we don't share a common reality on which to converse. I had to rearrange the comments because Vile doesn’t understand how this interface works... You don’t believe you share a common reality on which to converse... yet here you are still trying to sound ,Ike you now what you’re talking about. Maybe it is you who don’t have a reality? |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 20, 2019 15:11:47 GMT -8
Nature does care how you get pregnant. Nature prefers monogamous relationships between humans, shown by the diseases that can occur when a person has relations with numerous partners (note I am not making a moral judgement, just describing how nature works). Nature doesn't want woman past a certain age to have children, it sets up roadblocks from having that occur. Nature may not always have the best results, but it does have a plan.The fact that you speak about what nature "wants" and nature's "plan" indicates to me that we don't share a common reality on which to converse.You have a real misunderstanding of natural selection versus Eugenics. No, I don't...and that's not the subject here. I understand that Eugenics is driven by the idea that there is some sort of criteria whereby people can be judged to be "inferior" or "defective" and I find such ideas odious. You apparently are quite comfortable deciding what nature "wants" and what it doesn't want. Be careful, or someone might decide nature didn't want you.This is the second topic where you have made a claim that turned out to be 100% incorrect (the other was that a majority of gun deaths aren't self inflicted). The honorable & intelligent thing to do when making such errors is to acknowledge them and then retract your argument. I have some doubts that you have the self confidence to admit your error.I was wrong. It wouldn't do for you to have any doubts. Saying that nature "wants" or has a "plan" are nothing more than colloquial euphemisms I chose to use to make the topic easier to read for our audience. Similar to how folks will give human emotions to their dog when describing what cute thing their puppy did, it makes it easier to converse and communicate ideas to a large group of people (the readers). I could write out the scientific reasons for the items discussed, but then both of us would be boring & dry. Someone has to keep the audience on their feet, I willingly accept that responsibility. Dude, you introduced Eugenics into the conversation (incorrectly I might add), you don't get to lecture me that it wasn't the subject. Further, I don't decide what nature wants, I observe. In fact, the whole idea of someone "deciding" what nature wants is idiotic, it is a complete contradiction. Rather than digging the hole deeper, it would have been easier for you to just write "Oops, I was wrong" and admit you misapplied Eugenics while attempting to build a straw-man about my belief system. Congratulations on admitting you were incorrect, that is a big step forward. I mean that sincerely. I understand how you have gone through decades of insecurity based on your lifestyle, I'm assuming it was probably real tough. However, you really do need to let go of the snark, it is such a horrendous stereotype. When you continually end every post with some finger snapping, sassy, passive aggressive jab, you are setting the Alphabet folks movement back decades. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 21, 2019 2:39:38 GMT -8
Saying that nature "wants" or has a "plan" are nothing more than colloquial euphemisms I chose to use to make the topic easier to read for our audience.
I see...you weren't wrong you were being colloquial. Got it.
Dude, you introduced Eugenics into the conversation (incorrectly I might add), you don't get to lecture me that it wasn't the subject.
Actually, you brought it into the conversation when you said the following "Using medical techniques to bring new life into the world by humans who can not do so in a natural way weakens the species. Part of natural selection & survival of the fittest is nature stopping some members of a species from reproducing and weakening the gene pool of the group."
Further, I don't decide what nature wants, I observe.
Observe, or observe and make comments?
In fact, the whole idea of someone "deciding" what nature wants is idiotic, it is a complete contradiction.
Now you're getting it...sort of makes your comments above a little ridiculous.
When you continually end every post with some finger snapping, sassy, passive aggressive jab, you are setting the Alphabet folks movement back decades.
Your inappropriate condescension is mildly amusing but really doesn't help the discussion much don't you think?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 21, 2019 5:49:11 GMT -8
That’s funny.
He still can’t figure it out.
😄
|
|
