Cardinal Egan: "abortion equivalent to Nazism".

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You know what I did? I gave the dog a treat every time she sat, while saying "sit" at the same time. Eventually, she began to sit without the treat. Does she have emotion? No, I merely used cIassical conditioning. Donkey_Puncher

What you're describing is training, not emotion. Repeatidly beat the living hell out of your dog and check what his reaction to you after several years of it. He'll be scared or angry any time you approach him, hell any mistreated animal will act this way. That's called fear.

That's called cIassical conditioning. They'll associate you with pain and avoid you for that simple instinctive reason. It's a survival mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals#Further_reading

Primates and in particular Great Apes are candidates for highly developed capabilities for empathy and theories of mind. Great Apes have highly complex social systems. Young apes and their mothers have very strong bonds of attachment. Often when a baby chimpanzee or gorilla dies, the mother will carry the body around for several day. Jane Goodall has described chimpanzees as exhibiting mournful behavior.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Heh, you beat me to the primate emotion thing. Yup... when a primate mother dies, she will sometimes carry the body of her baby around with her for days. If that's not mourning, I don't know what is.Mr_sprinkles

I know what it is: anthropomorphising. You're reflecting your emotions on an animal even though the animal isn't necessarily doing anything emotional.

Because animals operate mainly on instinct. There's no way to tell if it's emotional, and going "I'm angry" whenever it raises its tail does not give it emotion.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Pets are genuinly happy when presented with a treat, or when they see their owner coming home. The dog responds when it is hit by showing fear. If animals don't show fear, nothing does. How can you say in one post that plants feel pain when given a stimulus, but animals don't show emotion when given the same?

Theokhoth

They use INSTINCT, not EMOTION. Pets are "happy" when you come home because, first of all, it's like they haven't seen you in many years, as some animals have little memory. Some forget you even existed! The ones that remember you instinctively go "oh, here comes the guy with food" and instinctively react. They instinctively react to pain by getting away from pain and avoiding the thing that causes pain.

You're mixing emotion with instinct. Pain is an instictive feeling and has nothing to do with emotion. Plants don't feel emotion; they feel pain due to their nervous systems.

No, you're mixing emotion with instinct. It isn't instinct to react happily when presented with food. Fear is also not an instinct. Running from a predator is instinct, but animals show fear as well.

Plants have a nervous system that is far removed from our own; animals don't. That's why we can relate to animal feelings but not plant pain.

Because animals operate mainly on instinct. There's no way to tell if it's emotional, and going "I'm angry" whenever it raises its tail does not give it emotion.

Theokhoth

There are ways to tell if it's emotional. That is done by studing similarities to the emotional centers of our brains, which are present in varying amounts in other animals, depending on the animal.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Heh, you beat me to the primate emotion thing. Yup... when a primate mother dies, she will sometimes carry the body of her baby around with her for days. If that's not mourning, I don't know what is.Theokhoth

I know what it is: anthropomorphising. You're reflecting your emotions on an animal even though the animal isn't necessarily doing anything emotional.

Because animals operate mainly on instinct. There's no way to tell if it's emotional, and going "I'm angry" whenever it raises its tail does not give it emotion.

How do you know that primate is acting on instinct rather than mourning?

Plants have a nervous system that is far removed from our own; animals don't.

Engrish_Major

Jagadish Chandra Bose found that plant nervous systems are somewhat similar to animals.

on the animal issue you got to realise, what is emotion, pain is just a bodily response to stimuli, I don't consider that emotion, You got to ask, does an animal love, hate, have vengance, feel embarrased, or jealous. These are emotions and I do not see these behaviors in animals, animals mate to reproduce, they don't plan vengance I'm pretty sure the don't feel embarrased. they don't try to out do each other like a popularity contest wise. They do fight, but that's only for territory and mating ground.ferrari2001

They lack many of the complex, mixed emotions felt by humans. You can not then automatically jump to the conclusion that they do not feel any emotion. The same biological reactions are seen in many animals as are seen in humans, matched by the corresponding parts of the brain reacting.

You're assuming your conclusion.

How do you know that primate is acting on instinct rather than mourning?

Mr_sprinkles

Because as far as has been demonstrated, only humans cry and express emotion to the point where we know it is emotion. On the other hand, all animals have instincts, and all animals are known to operate by those instincts less they face extinction, therefore it is more likely that what we see is instinct rather than emotion.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Plants have a nervous system that is far removed from our own; animals don't.

Theokhoth

Jagadish Chandra Bose found that plant nervous systems are somewhat similar to animals.

You're grossly oversimplifying his findings. He never said that.

on the animal issue you got to realise, what is emotion, pain is just a bodily response to stimuli, I don't consider that emotion, You got to ask, does an animal love, hate, have vengance, feel embarrased, or jealous. These are emotions and I do not see these behaviors in animals, animals mate to reproduce, they don't plan vengance I'm pretty sure the don't feel embarrased. they don't try to out do each other like a popularity contest wise. They do fight, but that's only for territory and mating ground.ferrari2001

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQAgzfwuNQ

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

You're assuming your conclusion.

How do you know that primate is acting on instinct rather than mourning?

Theokhoth

Because as far as has been demonstrated, only humans cry and express emotion to the point where we know it is emotion. On the other hand, all animals have instincts, and all animals are known to operate by those instincts less they face extinction, therefore it is more likely that what we see is instinct rather than emotion.

As has been said before, emotional response shown by tear glands do not directly equate with ability to feel emotion.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

You're assuming your conclusion.

How do you know that primate is acting on instinct rather than mourning?

Theokhoth

Because as far as has been demonstrated, only humans cry and express emotion to the point where we know it is emotion. On the other hand, all animals have instincts, and all animals are known to operate by those instincts less they face extinction, therefore it is more likely that what we see is instinct rather than emotion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Plants have a nervous system that is far removed from our own; animals don't.

Engrish_Major

Jagadish Chandra Bose found that plant nervous systems are somewhat similar to animals.

You're grossly oversimplifying his findings. He never said that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jagdish-chandra-bose

Bose then turned to the work that brought him his greatest fame: the measurement of the responses of plants to such stimuli as light, sound, touch, and electricity. His research convinced him that there were no clear-cut boundaries between the nervous systems of plants and of animals.

He most certainly did.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]on the animal issue you got to realise, what is emotion, pain is just a bodily response to stimuli, I don't consider that emotion, You got to ask, does an animal love, hate, have vengance, feel embarrased, or jealous. These are emotions and I do not see these behaviors in animals, animals mate to reproduce, they don't plan vengance I'm pretty sure the don't feel embarrased. they don't try to out do each other like a popularity contest wise. They do fight, but that's only for territory and mating ground.Mr_sprinkles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQAgzfwuNQ

really if I kill a crows entire family, friends and loved ones, that crow will come and hunt me down and kill me?

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

They both show that animals have emotions.

Theokhoth

The first shows a psychological fact called cIassical conditioning that is used to manipulate the behaviors (not emotions) of animals and people. Not emotion.

Your second does nothing but give words to go along with the body language of cats, which is anthropomorphising the cat.

OK then, let's do it a few other ways:

To say that animals have no emotions is saying that all they do is for their own survival. Tell me this: how does an elephant mourning the death of another elephant aid its survival?

If animals don't have emotions, how do we define animal cruelty? And let's say that it isn't just starvation or dehydration. Let's say you beat a cat. What tells me that I'm being cruel to the cat if it doesn't have emotions?

What possible advantage could this instinct of carrying dead offspring have? Surely if anything it's a disadvantage.Mr_sprinkles

Perhaps the mother doesn't understand that it's dead? Apes carry their young while they sleep, so one possibility is the ape merely is mistaken, thinking the young is sleeping when it's dead. It then realises that the young isn't waking up and leaves it.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Plants have a nervous system that is far removed from our own; animals don't.

Theokhoth

Jagadish Chandra Bose found that plant nervous systems are somewhat similar to animals.

You're grossly oversimplifying his findings. He never said that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jagdish-chandra-bose

Bose then turned to the work that brought him his greatest fame: the measurement of the responses of plants to such stimuli as light, sound, touch, and electricity. His research convinced him that there were no clear-cut boundaries between the nervous systems of plants and of animals.

He most certainly did.

No, he didn't. Just because there are no clear cut boundaries (because there is evolution involved) doesn't mean that a tree's nervous system is similar to a pig's. Not even close. What animals and plants are you comparing?

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]on the animal issue you got to realise, what is emotion, pain is just a bodily response to stimuli, I don't consider that emotion, You got to ask, does an animal love, hate, have vengance, feel embarrased, or jealous. These are emotions and I do not see these behaviors in animals, animals mate to reproduce, they don't plan vengance I'm pretty sure the don't feel embarrased. they don't try to out do each other like a popularity contest wise. They do fight, but that's only for territory and mating ground.ferrari2001

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQAgzfwuNQ

really if I kill a crows entire family, friends and loved ones, that crow will come and hunt me down and kill me?

[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"]

Abortion - killing innocent humans for personal gain

Nazis - Killed innocent Jews for Hitler's personal gain

Hmmmm.....

Led_poison

Obviously the doctor is a vampire that feeds on fetuses

Stop making threads

I agree with this

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Plants have a nervous system that is far removed from our own; animals don't.

Engrish_Major

Jagadish Chandra Bose found that plant nervous systems are somewhat similar to animals.

You're grossly oversimplifying his findings. He never said that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jagdish-chandra-bose

Bose then turned to the work that brought him his greatest fame: the measurement of the responses of plants to such stimuli as light, sound, touch, and electricity. His research convinced him that there were no clear-cut boundaries between the nervous systems of plants and of animals.

He most certainly did.

No, he didn't. Just because there are no clear cut boundaries (because there is evolution involved) doesn't mean that a tree's nervous system is similar to a pig's. Not even close. What animals and plants are you comparing?

That is explicitly what Bose concluded. There is no clear boundary between the nervous systems of plants and of animals, thus he concluded that plants can feel pain just like any other animal.

Look! Here's a Wiki!

In his research in plant stimuli, he showed with the help of his newly invented crescograph that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a parallelism between animal and plant tissues.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]What possible advantage could this instinct of carrying dead offspring have? Surely if anything it's a disadvantage.Theokhoth

Perhaps the mother doesn't understand that it's dead? Apes carry their young while they sleep, so one possibility is the ape merely is mistaken, thinking the young is sleeping when it's dead. It then realises that the young isn't waking up and leaves it.

As much as I think this could be considered a fairly accurate statement, I think it's wrong to invoke hyperbole when the general consensus would disagree.Genetic_Code

Replace "wrong" with "inadvisable" and I agree.

That is explicitly what Bose concluded. There is no clear boundary between the nervous systems of plants and of animals, thus he concluded that plants can feel pain just like any other animal.

Look! Here's a Wiki!

In his research in plant stimuli, he showed with the help of his newly invented crescograph that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a parallelism between animal and plant tissues.

Theokhoth

You're still oversimplifying it to fit your needs. He did not conclude that plants can feel pain "just like any other animal". And we've discussed before that plants react to a stimuli. That doesn't mean that it can feel pain like we, or animals, do. If you don't see a difference between a brain (with neocortex) and a spinal column to the anatomy of a plant, then I have nothing to say to you.

Anyway, do you have anything other than a 19th century botanist to back up your claims?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]What possible advantage could this instinct of carrying dead offspring have? Surely if anything it's a disadvantage.Mr_sprinkles

Perhaps the mother doesn't understand that it's dead? Apes carry their young while they sleep, so one possibility is the ape merely is mistaken, thinking the young is sleeping when it's dead. It then realises that the young isn't waking up and leaves it.

If I didn't know what "death" was, and if my kid looked sleeping, I'd treat it the same way as I would any other day/night he slept. Then once I figured out he wasn't waking up, I'd leave him.

And no, apes don't know what death is. I remember a case of an ape that learned sign language; when asked what death was, it simply did not know, and just responded "long sleep."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

That is explicitly what Bose concluded. There is no clear boundary between the nervous systems of plants and of animals, thus he concluded that plants can feel pain just like any other animal.

Look! Here's a Wiki!

In his research in plant stimuli, he showed with the help of his newly invented crescograph that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a parallelism between animal and plant tissues.

Engrish_Major

You're still oversimplifying it to fit your needs.

I didn't write those articles, so no I'm not. I am simplifying it in order to get my point across, but my simplification agrees with his conclusion.

He did not conclude that plants can feel pain "just like any other animal".

He explicitly stated otherwise.

And we've discussed before that plants react to a stimuli. That doesn't mean that it can feel pain like we, or animals, do. If you don't see a difference between a brain (with neocortex) and a spinal column to the anatomy of a plant, then I have nothing to say to you.

Guess what? It's not just your brain that deals with pain.:o It requires a nervous system!:o

Anyway, do you have anything other than a 19th century botanist to back up your claims?

The Crescograph (another invention of Bose's) is still used to this day. As I said before, Mythbusters did an episode on this very subject with a polygraph (you'll have to find the actual episode, as I can't find any vids that haven't been removed for copyright violations). Old research isn't invalid for being old; gravity was discovered a long time ago, therefore it's invalid?

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]What possible advantage could this instinct of carrying dead offspring have? Surely if anything it's a disadvantage.Theokhoth

Perhaps the mother doesn't understand that it's dead? Apes carry their young while they sleep, so one possibility is the ape merely is mistaken, thinking the young is sleeping when it's dead. It then realises that the young isn't waking up and leaves it.

If I didn't know what "death" was, and if my kid looked sleeping, I'd treat it the same way as I would any other day/night he slept. Then once I figured out he wasn't waking up, I'd leave him.

And no, apes don't know what death is. I remember a case of an ape that learned sign language; when asked what death was, it simply did not know, and just responded "long sleep."

source? Mr_sprinkles

Here's one: Koko the Gorilla.

Koko approached. She and Patterson had previously talked seriously about death. Patterson had asked Koko about her understanding of it, and the gorilla had responded, "Trouble old ... comfortable hole bye ... sleep." Death in the abstract had seemed to suggest peace to the gorilla. But now she was agitated and signing "frown, frown, frown, frown, frown."

So while the ape understood that death wasn't a good thing, it didn't know exactly what death was, equating it to sleep, nor did it have a concept of an afterlife or of nothingness.

That's what he said in his letter.

well keep up the good work, your Eminence. Let's keep fighting the culture wars until the Culture of Life triumphs over the Culture of Death, And in this election, Obama has allied himself to Planned Parenthood, thus he is on the Dark Side, and thus Christians must oppose him.

JoeRatz16

So the Church supports abortion then? That's crazy!

Enough talk about a 19th century botanist. Look at these:

http://www.physorg.com/news6250.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426051.300-do-animals-have-emotions.html

http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/animalemotions.htm

Edit - linkafied

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

That's what he said in his letter.

well keep up the good work, your Eminence. Let's keep fighting the culture wars until the Culture of Life triumphs over the Culture of Death, And in this election, Obama has allied himself to Planned Parenthood, thus he is on the Dark Side, and thus Christians must oppose him.

Frattracide

So the Church supports abortion then? That's crazy!

The Church doesn't support nazism. It didn't even support back in Hitler's day!

People saying crap like that need to learn some history, particularly about all the priests, nuns, monks, baptists and other religious figures who were executed for providing shelter to Jews.

Enough talk about a 19th century botanist. Look at these:

http://www.physorg.com/news6250.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426051.300-do-animals-have-emotions.html

http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/animalemotions.htm

Edit - linkafied

Engrish_Major

I thought we had already gotten past this?

Most research on plants today come from that 19th century botanist, who was one of the greatest scientists ever to come from India.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Enough talk about a 19th century botanist. Look at these:

http://www.physorg.com/news6250.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426051.300-do-animals-have-emotions.html

http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/animalemotions.htm

Edit - linkafied

Theokhoth

I thought we had already gotten past this?

Most research on plants today come from that 19th century botanist, who was one of the greatest scientists ever to come from India.

Sure, but these are studies on animals. Shows emotion. Read them. Learn.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Enough talk about a 19th century botanist. Look at these:

http://www.physorg.com/news6250.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426051.300-do-animals-have-emotions.html

http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/animalemotions.htm

Edit - linkafied

Engrish_Major

I thought we had already gotten past this?

Most research on plants today come from that 19th century botanist, who was one of the greatest scientists ever to come from India.

Sure, but these are studies on animals. Shows emotion. Read them. Learn.

Again, I thought we had moved on from animals. . . .

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And your proof is this is...?Theokhoth

How exactly would you go about proving that?

Strawman; I never said it was unprovable.:roll:

Nobody has the right to murder; everybody has the right to stop murder. Simple.

Abortion is only murder if you believe the foetus at all stages to be a qualified human being with the right to life.

Again, I thought we had moved on from animals. . . .

Theokhoth

Sure, if you agree that they experience emotion.

Abortion is only murder if you believe the foetus at all stages to be a qualified human being with the right to life.

MetalGear_Ninty

What you believe is subjective; your beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not it is murder (or "unjust, government-sanctioned killing of innocents" for the semanticists), otherwise murderers in jail are not guilty for the simple reason that they don't believe they committed murder.

If it is a human living in the United States of America (foreign or otherwise), it is entitled to the rights held in the constitution.

A fetus is by all biological standards a human; the debate rests in philosophy, and really, since when do we define life based on whether or not we "feel" it is alive? It's an argument of emotion and is irrational, as well as against the pro-choice mantra.

Therefore, if a fetus is a human in America, it is entitled to the right to life.

Therefore abortion is unjust and a violation of rights.

Not quite.

Considering that Hitler killed people just 'cause, and abortions could, in some cases, save the mother's life, or not having an abortion could ruin the mother's life, it's not the same. I doubt Hitler killed Jews because his life depended on it.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Again, I thought we had moved on from animals. . . .

Engrish_Major

Sure, if you agree that they experience emotion.

I've mostly been arguing possible alternatives for the past two pages. . .

I've mostly been arguing possible alternatives for the past two pages. . .

Theokhoth

Your own words:

"Animals with emotions? Now that's the wild claim."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I've mostly been arguing possible alternatives for the past two pages. . .

Engrish_Major

Your own words:

"Animals with emotions? Now that's the wild claim."

A claim made long before anybody showed any research beyond "well just look at your pet!"

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Abortion is only murder if you believe the foetus at all stages to be a qualified human being with the right to life.

Theokhoth

What you believe is subjective; your beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not it is murder (or "unjust, government-sanctioned killing of innocents" for the semanticists), otherwise murderers in jail are not guilty for the simple reason that they don't believe they committed murder.

If it is a human living in the United States of America (foreign or otherwise), it is entitled to the rights held in the constitution.

A fetus is by all biological standards a human; the debate rests in philosophy, and really, since when do we define life based on whether or not we "feel" it is alive? It's an argument of emotion and is irrational, as well as against the pro-choice mantra.

Therefore, if a fetus is a human in America, it is entitled to the right to life.

Therefore abortion is unjust and a violation of rights.

That's like saying, say if I hypothesise a country which says murder should be rewarded with 500 pounds or dollars etc, that from that 'murder is right.'

Like also, semantical debate is also fallacious. What biologists call 'human' is far from what we mean philosophically when we say 'human'.

So really, such semantics is useless.

Invoking law in such a matter is fallacious, for one could just say, 'then change the law'.

That's like saying, say if I hypothesise a country which says murder should be rewarded with 500 pounds or dollars etc, that from that 'murder is right.'

Like also, semantical debate is also fallacious. What biologists call 'human' is far from what we mean philosophically when we say 'human'.

So really, such semantics is useless.

MetalGear_Ninty

I haven't invoked the law. I've invoked basic human rights. If the law opposes human rights then the law should be changed. But belief in whether or not you've broken the law has no bearing on whether or not you have, in fact, broken the law.

Biology is more or less objective and not subject to change regarding humanity. Philosophy, on the other hand,is entirely subjective: you believe it's not human till it thinks, and I believe it's not human till it gets a soul (at conception), so you're right on that matter; debating humanity based on philosophy is pointless.

Biologically, however, there is no debate. So rather than set laws based on how some people strongly feel about what is or is not a human, we should be setting laws on who is and is not a human.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Invoking law in such a matter is fallacious, for one could just say, 'then change the law'.

That's like saying, say if I hypothesise a country which says murder should be rewarded with 500 pounds or dollars etc, that from that 'murder is right.'

Like also, semantical debate is also fallacious. What biologists call 'human' is far from what we mean philosophically when we say 'human'.

So really, such semantics is useless.

Theokhoth

I haven't invoked the law. I've invoked basic human rights. If the law opposes human rights then the law should be changed. But belief in whether or not you've broken the law has no bearing on whether or not you have, in fact, broken the law.

Biology is more or less objective and not subject to change regarding humanity. Philosophy, on the other hand,is entirely subjective: you believe it's not human till it thinks, and I believe it's not human till it gets a soul (at conception), so you're right on that matter; debating humanity based on philosophy is pointless.

Biologically, however, there is no debate. So rather than set laws based on how some people strongly feel about what is or is not a human, we should be setting laws on who is and is not a human.

You can't base such a thing like this on biology alone, for biology in and of itself is not concerned with morality in the slightest.

Therefore, you are making moral judgements based on an amoral subject (biology).

I love Theo's flawed logic.. He some how thinks his position is undeniable when its a hotly debated scenerio in both the philosophy and biological communities on when we consider it a human life.. And then he tries to make the people who happen to have a difference of opinion false, by using comparisons that are highly flawed and hardly can compare. Theo quit while your ahead, no one agrees iwth you except the people who are already against abortion.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

source? Theokhoth

Here's one: Koko the Gorilla.

Koko approached. She and Patterson had previously talked seriously about death. Patterson had asked Koko about her understanding of it, and the gorilla had responded, "Trouble old ... comfortable hole bye ... sleep." Death in the abstract had seemed to suggest peace to the gorilla. But now she was agitated and signing "frown, frown, frown, frown, frown."

So while the ape understood that death wasn't a good thing, it didn't know exactly what death was, equating it to sleep, nor did it have a concept of an afterlife or of nothingness.

Wait, a few questions:

Was the gorilla asked "How are you feeling" at any point ever?
Had it been proven or disproven before that Koko could understand concepts and their connotations, or did it merely understand objects and such?