A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. boiler95 commented on Glenn McCoy 7 months ago

    So, someone that points out to a friend or loved one they are doing something wrong, they don’t love them anymore. People point out faults to steer their friends and loved ones to the right path, not because they hate them.
    .
    Based on your reasoning, any difference of opinion is because the two sides hate each other.

  2. boiler95 commented on Glenn McCoy 9 months ago

    Did the president say “If you’re on Medicaid and you like your doctor, you can keep him” or did he say “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” unqualified? I believe it was just before or after stating “if you like your insurance, you can keep it”. Based on context, I believe that would make it an unqualified statement.

  3. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 1 year ago

    I’m asking for a scientific definition of when human life begins, a specific event in the life of a human being. I’m not asking for a dissertation on the origins of the human species.

  4. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 1 year ago

    No, a cancer tumor has damaged DNA, not full human DNA. Second, cancer is a clump of cells that expands into a clump of cells. It has no developmental path that would result in anything more than a clump of cells. Therefore, cancer tumors are not human beings.
    .
    Before someone tries to bring up donated organs or blood, again, these do not have a developmental path that would result in a full grown adult. Therefore, they are not human beings on their own either.

  5. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 1 year ago

    You brought up science, so please provide a consistent, logical, scientific definition of when a human being begins to exist. Such a definition would not be subject to exceptions purely to benefit a particular belief. It should be applicable in all situations, such as premature birth.
    .
    I’ll provide my definition:
    1) Full Human DNA (identity)
    2) Metabolism (living status)
    3) Growth (developmental path)
    .
    I’m interested in hearing your scientific definition.

  6. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel over 1 year ago

    I hate when I forget to enter a line with a single period so the paragraphs separate properly.

  7. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel over 1 year ago

    I’m trying to establish a consistent, logical, scientific definition of when a human being begins to exist. Such a definition would not be subject to exceptions purely to benefit a particular belief. It should be applicable in all situations. I’ve have provided such a definition: full human DNA (identity), metabolism (living status) and growth (developmental path). I’m asking for your definition that meets the same standards. My “getting stuck” on a few points is me pointing out the inconsistencies and exceptions you appear to have in your definition.

    With that in mind, I want to propose the following situation and question. Is the baby a human being immediately after birth? Keep in mind that immediately after birth the baby physiology is identical to what it was an hour or even more before birth. It is still connected to the mother and in many cases has yet to taken a breath, water birth for example.

    If you call such a baby a human being, then you are providing a definition where the key component is external to the individual. This is not logical. A human being is ‘what’ the individual is, not ‘where’ it is. The status of being human is not subject to where the individual is in space-time.

    If you say the baby immediately after birth is not a human being, then you are introducing a situation where a human being produces something that is not human. This is in direct conflict with basic biology. Kind produces kind. A human produces a human, not some other species that becomes a human after a period of time outside the womb.

    I also have another question on this topic. You stated late term abortions are “rare and performed to save the life of the mother”. As I understand late term abortion, the procedure is to deliver all but the head of the fetus, terminate the life of the fetus, then deliver the rest. So, what life threatening condition could the mother have that would allow the delivery of a dead fetus, but not a live one? Follow up, what happens in the situation where a mistake happens during the procedure and the entire fetus is delivered prior to the termination step?

    I’m not concerned with the legal arguments right now. I’m just attempting to establish a consistent definition of humanity. Decisions regarding when, where and how a human’s life can be legally ended are subject to morality, beliefs and, honestly, the whim of those in power. In other words, not scientific and, in the case of government, rarely logical.

  8. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel over 1 year ago

    Actually, I have responded to your chicken and egg argument. The chicken fetus has the full chicken DNA, undergoes metabolic processes, and grows. Ergo, the chicken fetus is a living chicken at an early stage of development, but a chicken none the less. The chicken/egg difference is a developmental difference, not a species difference. FYI, I’d also send back a day old chick if they tried to serve it as chicken, still doesn’t make it any less of a chicken.
    .
    I’m not basing the definition solely on complete human DNA. If I were, then blood transfusions would be individual human beings. I’m defining a living human based on DNA, metabolism, and development together.
    .
    You appear to be stuck on defining a human being based on location. If that’s the case, then is a living fetus outside the womb a human being? What about an astronaut in the vacuum of space without a suit? Both those cases will result in the death of the individual without overt human intervention. This definition also lacks a description of the biologic process by which something not human becomes human. The woman undergoes a process to expel the fetus, but the fetus does not undergo any physical changes. It just changes from breathing amniotic fluid to breathing air because that is what surrounds it. Finally, how will you handle the day when science and technology progress to the point a full term baby can be grown outside a womb?
    .
    So, if location is not a reliable determination, how about developmental stage? This seems more reasonable and lasting. If you choose this path, then I challenge you to provide a developmental definition of a living human being that doesn’t either result in defining a premie as “not human” or some fetuses still in the womb as “human”.

  9. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel over 1 year ago

    FYI, I’m looking for someone to show me where my logic is incomplete.

  10. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel over 1 year ago

    I can’t help but notice you completely ignored my statement regarding late term abortion. The fetus has developed to the point it is capable of breathing, eating and excrete on its own (your definition). It is even practicing these processes while in the womb. The only reason it doesn’t perform these tasks outside the mother is because it is still in the womb. If you say the location prevents it from being a human being, then a person held under water ceases to be a human being before they actually die because they can’t breathe.
    .
    Of course a fetus and a soldier are not the same, they are at completely different stages of human development. Neither are a baby and a soldier, a mother and a child, a teenager and an adult. They are, however, the same in that they both have a full set of human DNA, consume energy, undergo metabolism, form new cells, generate waste and locomote. As for reproduction, this piece of your argument doesn’t stand since the juvenile of any species does not reproduce. The stage of development does not, from a scientific standpoint, determine when a human being comes into existence. Otherwise a human being comes from something that is not a human being which contradicts basic biology (kind produces kind).
    .
    The cadaver and fetus argument is red herring as well. The cadaver is by definition dead (not a living human) where as the fetus by definition is alive. Also, it takes an overt action the keep the cadaver’s metabolic processes going. The natural process does not hook a cadaver up to the machines. On the other hand, it takes an overt action to end the metabolic processes of the fetus. You said it yourself, one must disconnect the fetus from the mother which is an overt act except in the case of miscarriage.
    .
    As for those on death’s door, they are given the choice to decide if they want to be kept alive by machine. It’s called a living will. The fetus, on the other hand, has no choice whatsoever. They are merely an innocent bystander in the decision that is made regarding their existence.