Comments by decius

Comment #255007 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Comment #254960 by PERSON

Apparently, it can be used as amorphous coating in bone transplant and as a substrate for growing proteins and neurons in an organised way.

652. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254997 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #254994 by Titania

Please, tell me that you did fire her.

653. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254992 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Comment #254932 by hawt4dawk

Thanks, I have replied.

654. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254790 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #254774 by Steve Zara

Sorry no. And as I apparently "litter my posts with ad-hominems", perhaps I should add I don't like your icon :

ROTFL

655. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254638 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 3:26 am

Steve, I've just sent you a couple of emails.

I guess the first one is now redundant.

656. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254631 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 3:11 am

Fanusi,

I got your PM and replied.

Thanks

657. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254626 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 2:42 am

Comment #254616 by Sargeist

I like this one better. The former is simpler, though.

658. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254611 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #254602 by Fanusi Khiyal

Ad hoc rescue.

Comment #254592 by Diacanu

Thanks

659. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254590 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 1:48 am

Comment #254588 by Fanusi Khiyal

Sure, but only if you can find another person that deems it necessary.

660. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254587 by decius on September 26, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #254572 by Fanusi Khiyal

The reason I'm anti-abortion, hawt, is that I cannot see any moral standard by which it is ethical to sacrifice one human life to another.

Emphasis.

661. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254441 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Brian,

fascinating, thanks.

662. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254440 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Comment #253834 by AtheistJon

Tit

Lout.

663. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254437 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Comment #254430 by Titania

I haven't checked that thread in a while, sorry.

664. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254433 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #254431 by Thor

Sure. It certainly makes for an interesting reading.

665. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254426 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I thought kidney stones were a thing of the past. Somehow I was convinced that ultrasound therapy would pulverise them.

666. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254422 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Comment #254417 by Titania

Remarkable.

Kidney stones are a different type of pain and you don't get a baby at the end.

Yeah, but you should still baptise them.

667. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254415 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Thor,

thanks for the link.

I read through the post, but there are additional required readings, for which I have no time, right now.

From what I've read so far, not all what Carrier says makes sense to me.
I find the premise particularly weak a reason to find a definition for the supernatural, as if science had to pander to people's feelings in order to justify and preserve its enterprise:

scientists separate themselves from the people with deviant language, the less support they will find from that quarter, and the legal and scientific communities as we know them will crumble if they lose the support of the people. Science and the courts must serve man. And to do that, they must at least try to speak his language.

Also, his 'mental' and 'nonmental' categories, taken at face value, seem circular reasoning at best, and the raving of a dualist at worst.
However, I will suspend judgement until I have actually read the added links.

Thanks!

668. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254348 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Comment #254332 by Steve Zara

Yes, I agree.

669. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254346 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Comment #254325 by Brian English

I'd say that unless you can rule out categorically all natural explanations

Of course.

How could 'supernatural' even be unequivocally defined?

670. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254321 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #254299 by Steve Zara

However, my view is that no evidence can ever support the supernatural, as there is always the possibility that the apparently magical is the result of a simulation in a natural system.

Not that I entirely disagree, but with the simulation hypothesis one could deny one or more aspects of reality and that in turn would lead to nihilism.

Playing devil's advocate. Think, for instance, if we found an ancient set of detailed prophecies that proved totally correct, far beyond possibility of chance. Its ancientness would tend to exclude the possibility of an advanced time-travel technology, and could indicate clairvoyance.
Also, people like Randi have laid out different protocols that could allow researchers to identify supernatural (perhaps paranormal is a better word) phenomena.
Would you discard evidence thus collected, too?

671. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254303 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Comment #254298 by hawt4dawk

Sure, any time.

672. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254277 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #254268 by Paula Kirby

I agree with Steve, there. Theism is self-contradictory and entails a huge number of logical problems. The lack of evidence for theism simply whets its antithetical position to science and reason.

673. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254269 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Comment #254263 by hawt4dawk

Thanks.

By the way, I replied to you this morning. In case you missed it: there is no need to ask for permission, your PMs are most welcome.

674. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254257 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Comment #254239 by hawt4dawk

I am not sure whether a prostate treatment is more taxing for doctors or patients.

675. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254242 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #254234 by Steve Zara

Yes, I do think it is reasonable.

I wouldn't call it reasonable, as reason is the natural antidote to wacky beliefs, even in the absence of a formal education in critical thinking.

676. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254138 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 11:58 am

Comment #254122 by Corylus

Excellent post.

677. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254133 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 11:52 am

Comment #254130 by TheHardProblem

'Put on trial' is maybe put a little dramatic here,

It is not, given the one-year maximum penalty.

I find this to be pretty much acceptable, from a cultural point of view.

Acceptable theocracy. Right.

678. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254100 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #254089 by Steve Zara

I see little evidence of such education. Your views in this area don't show the nuanced approach that I would have expected.

]

Indeed.

679. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254099 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 10:59 am

Comment #254098 by Jesus86

I'M NOT SAYING THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS ARE RIGHT. I'm saying that their reluctance to give referrals makes perfectly good sense, GIVEN their moral beliefs about abortion.

Well, it seems that you don't read carefully what people post.

I said:

...they are first and foremost doctors, and then catholics, and as a secular society we can't afford to bow to the extremes of absolute moral relativism.
You concede that catholic doctors are mistaken, yet you suggest that it's the patient and society at large which have to bear the cost of their erroneous perceptions.

Answer to that, instead of writhing in pain.

680. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254097 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 10:56 am

. Comment #254092 by Jesus86

The proposed law is not "common medical practice." It is being proposed precisely to change medical practice, to require something that was hitherto not required.

(Face transplant was first carried out in 2005.)

Face transplant is not "common medical practice." It is being proposed precisely to change medical practice, to require something that was hitherto not required.

The medical profession is not a monolithic set of rules and procedures. Doctors are expected to keep up to date, it is part of their job description.

681. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254091 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 10:44 am

Comment #254086 by Jesus86

(some) Catholic doctors (mistakenly) think that an abortion is an unjustified killing of a rights-bearing human entity, fully on a par, morally, with killing an inconvenient husband. For them, giving a referral for an abortion is morally just as repugnant as giving a referral for a hit-man. Why is that so difficult for some people to see?

(some) Jeovah Witness doctors (mistakenly) think that a transfusion is an unjustified killing of a rights-bearing human entity, fully on a par, morally, with killing an inconvenient husband. For them, giving a referral for a transfusion is morally just as repugnant as giving a referral for a hit-man. Why is that so difficult for some people to see?

(some) Nazi doctors (mistakenly) think that treating a jew is an unjustified waste of hospital resources, fully on a par, morally, with betraying the aryan race. For them, giving a referral for jew-friendly hospital is morally just as repugnant as giving a referral for the end of aryan civilisation. Why is that so difficult for some people to see?

Why is it so difficult for you to see that they are first and foremost doctors, and then catholics, and as a secular society we can't afford to bow to the extremes of absolute moral relativism?
You concede that catholic doctors are mistaken, yet you suggest that it's the patient and society at large which have to bear the cost of their erroneous perceptions.

682. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253881 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #253733 by hawt4dawk

Of course, no need to ask.

683. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253707 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Comment #253704 by Jesus86

decius, you seriously over-estimate your grasp of moral theory

I couldn't care less for moral theory, but I can spot a charlatan a mile away.

684. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253701 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Brian, MPhil, Goldy

You guys have faith.

685. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253688 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Comment #253672 by Jesus86

I only have a DPhil in ethics / political philosophy from Oxford. I taught ethics at a university for 10 years.

And this would not be an appeal to authority, would it?

I am not impressed.

You may or may not be who you claim you are, the point is that since your day one on this site, I have seen nothing in your comments but chest-thumping, misplaced accusations of logical fallacy, cheap rhetorical shots, demagoguery and the omnipresent general accusation: "you have faith".

Referring to what "the world" accepts as a fundamental human right is an appeal to authority.

As I said in my first comment, I was referring to the International Charter of Human Rights, which was written with the cooperation of an army of moral philosophers (how comes you don't know that? After all, you are the one who allegedly teaches moral philosophy and continuously appeals to it). Being said charter based on an informed consensus referring to it IS NOT an appeal to authority.

BTW, you probably wanted to say argumentum ad populum (the world) and not ad authoritatem.

"The world" also accepts freedom of religion as a fundamental human right, though not one you have much sympathy for.

Even if I have no sympathy for religion, I recognise to everyone the right to worship whatever they want, unless they overstep the boundaries and try to impose their nonsense on others.

What is your argument when the world accepts conflicting human rights?

I don't know whether the Charter sanctions conflicting human rights, but I doubt it.

I'm qualified to grade your essays unless its true what I suspect, that you are an untrained genius.

No, you are not. I have a scientific degree, even though I work as an artist.
If this is a snide comment directed at my syntax, please note that English is my third language.

686. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253660 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Comment #253659 by Jesus86

Switching from begging the question to appealing to authority

Which authority?

Do you think human rights were written down and agreed upon without any regard to moral philosophy?

687. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253658 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Here we go.

He is again whining about faith, question-begging and calling foul where there is none.

What a clown.

688. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253654 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Comment #253642 by Jesus86

We are debating the merits of a propsed law. Appealing to what the existing laws say isn't going to help you even with the legal argument. But I didn't think we were getting into a constitutional-law argument; I thought we were debating the moral merits of the proposed law. So yet again you are begging or evading the question.

Bullshit.

We are talking about a fundamental human right, which is already recognised all over the world, as I have just shown. I invite you to check the veracity of my statements. The law is simply extending the recognition of this pre-existing right.

Elective doesn't mean unnecessary. It means that the mother chooses not to carry out the pregnancy, for whatever reason.

A pregnancy shorten a woman's life and she undergoes deep hormonal, musculoskeletal, metabolical and renal changes. Thus it's closely and directly associated to her health, and she is entitled to be in charge of it.

689. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253631 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Comment #253615 by Jesus86

I asked you where the duty one person owes to another to perform services comes from, and your response is to assert that "the duty is owed to the patient." That isn't an argument, unless you call begging the question an argument.

First of all, we are not talking of any 'services', but of health-care: a fundamental human right unlike manicure, tyre pressure checks or the right of being served coconut sherbets on the beach.

For your information the Charter of Human Rights states:

the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.

Every country in the world is now party to at least one human rights treaty that addresses health-related rights. This includes the right to health as well as other rights that relate to conditions necessary for health.

Therefore, not only did I not beg the question, but you were erecting a straw man by equating a fundamental human right to any 'service'.

Secondly, in most countries an important patient right is informed consent. This means that if you need a treatment, your health care provider should give you the information you need to make a decision.
This is usually sanctioned by law and it will now finally be so in the UK, as well.

Hence, doctors who refuse to provide a referral will simply be breaking the law.

Under what conditions is Person A morally obligated to perform (unnecessary) personal services for Person B

Please, demonstrate that abortion is unnecessary, otherwise it's you who is begging the question.

690. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253607 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Comment #253599 by Jesus86

The onus is on you to show that somebody HAS a duty in the first place.

The duty is toward the patient, obviously. Any other consideration is secondary. If the physician's objections have no merit in reality, he must be compelled to perform what by all means is a normal medical procedure concerning the welfare of the patients, which I wouldn't characterise as the whimsical wishes of random people.
If the physician is unwilling to do so, he is clearly not fit for the medical profession. I see no problem with that, he is free to enter a monastery or undertake whatever profession better suits his personality and sense of morals.

691. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253592 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Comment #253586 by DarwinsPitbull

Listen, half-wit, I never said what you wilfully misconstrued from my words.

Now, if you have a valid argument, bring it on.

692. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253590 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Comment #253585 by Jesus86

But no appeal medical science can possibly conclude that such a duty exists.

Developmental biology, embryology, neuroscience etc- and not medical science which is an applied science - can show whether the objections of conscience have any merit. Surely we are not expected to bow to supernatural fantasies while tackling moral dilemmas.

693. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253583 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Comment #253579 by DarwinsPitbull

Wow i can't believe if have been under the misconception that it takes a sperm and an egg to create a human.

Likewise, it takes a person willing to undergoing motherhood to carry out a pregnancy, it takes a fully-developed brain to create consciousness, it takes many weeks in the womb to create personhood from an accretion of tissues and cells, it takes years of eager commitment to raise a child.

What is not required is the unscientific opinion of committed ideologues.

694. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253558 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #253555 by Quine

Excellent post.

695. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253546 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #253542 by Fanusi Khiyal

I wasn't being hostile, sorry if I came across that way. I was convinced that you expressed your adversity to the right of conscience before, if it didn't involve abortion. I think it's perfectly relevant, if that were the case.

If not, simply say so.

696. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253535 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Comment #253532 by Fanusi Khiyal

I don't know what straw man you are trying to erect this time.

Would you support the right of a muslim woman doctor not to properly scrap and disinfect because they would have to uncover their skin?
Would you uphold the 'conscience' of a muslim doctor who refuse to treat a drunkard, or a jew, or a vaginal condition?

697. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253533 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #253501 by DarwinsPitbull

I am not a professional biologist or anything, but doesn't it take a sperm and an egg to create a life?

A gamete is 'life' as much as a blastocyst is. Ever seen the pictures of sperms swimming in the seminal fluid?

They are both POTENTIAL human beings.

Since you are not a biologist, why don't you leave it to scientists to decide what constitute human life and personhood?
Or will you demand to impose your version of neurosurgery, next?

698. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253522 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Fanusi Khiyal

Also, am I the only one who sees something wrong about forcing doctors to violate their conscience?

Yes you are the only one, except that you are being selectively biased.
When it comes to muslim doctors their 'conscience' doesn't matter jackshit to you.

699. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253516 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #253464 by SharonMcT

Certainly science doesn't support the position of anti-abortionists, who usually are as loud as they are ignorant of developmental biology.

700. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253496 by decius on September 24, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Comment #253459 by DarwinsPitbull

Could you learn to read so you know what I was responding to? You think that would be possible?

It doesn't matter what you were responding to.

Yours was a question loaded with the unstated major premise that a foetus is a full-formed sentient baby (something you were arguing for without having demonstrated) and you were trying to shame the interlocutor through guilt. Twice.