Posts by adamah

285

Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah in

there's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.

code ann.

166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.

adamah

Thanks for the update on the prior case, JT.

FHN said-

There has to be more to this JT, or the hospital wouldn't put its self at risk in court.

And what risk do you think the hospital is putting itself in, when they can point to an ambiguously-worded law as their defense?

They're actually playing it ultra-conservative, and likely overly-cautious (over-interpreting the law), since there is no monetary damages to be awarded for following State law, etc, and the husband is seeking an emergency ruling, only. Filing to seek monetary damages would require a separate filing (a cause of action) for the huband to file a claim that the hospital was intentionally misreading the law to cause him and his family emotional distress.

At this point, though, the husband is forced to find (and pay) a lawyer out-of-pocket to try and force the hospital (JPS) to give up their odd claim that a dead body is a patient, and get the judge to issue an order telling JPS to disconnect his wife, as she wished.

Who knows what JPS's motivations are, but the obvious suspicious is someone in the hospital is trying to "run down the clock", dragging their feet and covering their ears to buy time for the fetus to make it to wk 24, when viability can first be assessed (and the test says little about it's cognitive state, just the viability of it's body, so it could be born as a vegetable).

The inaction of JPS IS infliction of emotional distress on the husband and family, but showing 'intent' in court will be another matter, indeed, if the husband files that suit in the future. So at this point, they face little risk by over-interpreting the law (pointing to the law as their justification, trying to avoid violating criminal law by ignoring the Advanced Driective Act). It's a bad law, and needs to be wiped off the books (as the article posted by JT points out, it's likely unconstitutional, but it'll take YEARS in order to work it's way up to the Supreme Court, IF the husband wants to spend the next decade of his life trying to push this issue through the TX legal system).

Adam

285

Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah in

there's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.

code ann.

166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.

adamah

Apo said- Essentially my argument for (a) was that I cannot see any scientific reason why a fetus or an embryo is not a living human being.

That's a classic argument called "appeal to ignorance", which says that 'since we don't know something for certain (in this case, whether the fetus is or isn't a human being), THEREFORE we should do 'X' (in this case, continue to disregard the wishes if the family).

Adam said- how do you define "life" in a zygote? Heck, how do you define 'life' in a human, i.e. what in your mind are the properties of human beings that actually make us 'human'?

Apo said- "Life" is "animate matter". "Human" is shorthand for "homo sapiens" like "cat" is shorthand for "Felis catus".

Sperm LITERALLY are "animate matter" (motile, i.e. they swim, they MOVE: that's what 'animate' means). Am I committing murder unless I fail to play 'matchmaker' for a million of individual sperm, finding each a suitable egg to set up a happy little home?

Heck, have you heard of 'Brownian motion', a phenomenon where ALL matter, organic OR inorganic alike, will appear to be moving and quivering when observed under a microscope? It mystified scientists 150 years ago, until someone suggested the movement was due to random atoms in the medium (i.e. water) hitting the object from all sides, causing it to move.

So, do you want to set the bar a little higher than just 'animate', since it's utterly meaningless, as it stands.

Adam said- For me, one of the most important defining characteristics of humans is their capacity for thought and expression, of interacting with the World

Apo said- Which capacity a baby will eventually possess if it is allowed to continue developing naturally in the womb. How is a potential person worth less than an actual person?

In the same way a potential crime is not possible; a crime must ACTUALLY OCCUR to be prosecuted. The abiity to convict people of crimes they might commit makes for great sci-fi films (eg Minority Report with Tom Cruise and the 'pre-cogs'), but it's completely meaningless in a World where prescient beings don't exist.

Modern law is premised on giving greater rights to those who get their first, based on the "you snooze, you lose" principle. Whether the Oklahoma land rush, the right to stake a claim on land in California, or the rights of living beings, the default policy is "first come, first served".

Adam

285

Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah in

there's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.

code ann.

166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.

adamah

Apo said-

Your reasoning is not ignorant, and your tone isn't the problem. I'm referring to your habit of not listening to people. No matter what they say, you just post the same information again about Texas law. It's like you think we believe that our suggestions are going to be taken by some lawyer in Texas and used to win a case. We're just spouting opinions here, so I don't know why you keep repeating the same information as if this constitutes having an argument. If you can explain why you're copy-pasting your own posts over and over, I would appreciate it.

The term "tone trolling" seems like a two-edged sword, are you sure you want to go there? I could more easily accuse Comatose of tone trolling for complaining that people like me have differing opinions from the ones bemoaning the situation, or accuse you of it for complaining about people making emotional appeals.

Come on, now: you can level with me. You didn't actually read the definition of tone trolling I linked to, did you? Or if you did, you didn't really understand what the term means, right?

You don't even HAVE to admit it, as you incriminated yourself by suggesting that calling someone on their "appeals to emotion" is even-remotely similar to "tone trolling", since they're not.

Do yourself a favor and learn more about the informal logical fallacies, first practicing identifying them in the words of others; THEN, more importantly, scan your posts to ask yourself if you're about to commit one BEFORE you hit submit. Rational thinking and learning informal fallacies is REALLY important for ex-JWs to learn, and especially so for JWs, since the WTBTS are MASTERS at manipulation by relying on (.... wait for it....) informal fallacies.

Anyway, back to the topic:

I offered a rational argument for my viewpoint.

Yeah, and what was it again?

Apo said- My argument was that (a) life begins at conception, and therefore this is a matter of life-and-death, and thus (b) the rights of the fetus to continue living thus trump the rights of the father and family to not have a relative kept on life support when she is already legally dead. The former rights violation is a matter of life-and-death and the latter is a matter of sentiment, therefore the former violation takes priority.

Well, that's many of your CONCLUSIONS, and not actually an argument per se, since you forgot to provide PROOF to support those claims.

For example, you said "life begins at conception". I know it's a pro-life meme, but how do you KNOW that? How does ANYONE prove that, much less claim to "know" that?

And even before we get that far, we'd need to agree on the definitions of words ('conception' is easy since it's a scientific term), but, eg how do you define "life" in a zygote? Heck, how do you define 'life' in a human, i.e. what in your mind are the properties of human beings that actually make us 'human'?

For me, one of the most important defining characteristics of humans is their capacity for thought and expression, of interacting with the World; a zygote doesn't live up to that standard. You seemingly value individual organisms that simply share the DNA of the human species, but I place greater value on the well-being of conscious creatures. Thus I value the well-being of human brains and minds, and not just human DNA (which my fingernail contains).

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Viviane said-

Adamah, impotent CAN mean powerless, it also means unable to take effective action. I was using the latter, not the former. I am not saying it's a good translation, but some Bibles, like the KJV 2000, does render Revelation 19:6 to contain the word "omnipotent", most others say "almighty".

None of which is relevant, since I said you committed the logical error of exclusion of alternatives (AKA false dilemma, or jumping to the other extreme). After reading the article, san you see what you did?

Hummingbird said-

Unless we know for sure that fracking caused the plate shifting that caused the tsunami, you are just arguing an off-topic point, adamah.

The hell it is: it became 'on-topic' when Cofty spouted a claim that is demonstrably-false. Don't suppose you've ever learned the rules of logic and rhetoric?

Logically, it IS a valid argument, only it's a circular argument - Adam

Cofty said- A valid circular argument?

Yes, it's a valid example of a CIRCULAR argument (perhaps I should've put a smilie in there).

However, technically circular arguments can be valid, where the conclusion is true but only if the premise itself is true. That's obviously not always the case, and why circular arguments are considered as a useless form of an argument. It's also called "begging the question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando , "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking [1] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end up with. [2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.

Cofty said- Adam the earthquake that casued the Asian tsunami occured 19 miles below the Indian Ocean. It wasn't caused by fracking.

Are you a geologist? (Clearly not, since you weren't aware that ANY earthquake could be caused by human activity.) Are you aware of the geological factors at play in Indonesia in 2004? You have no basis to claim it wasn't, and the fact is you don't know WHY it happened. You made a statement which you cannot prove since you cannot prove the cause; you're assuming it was due to faulty design, but it would take more than a bald assertion in a court of law to prove manufacturer negligence (and here's a hint: the manufacturer gives an incriminating statement in the Bible, itself).

So the point remains: SOME earthquakes are known to have been caused by human activity, so if you wanted to be "fair and balanced" as you claim, you can add that human activity may have triggered the earthquake in a manner that science doesn't quite yet understand, and God chose not to intervene (whether due to 'benign neglect', or even as punishment for man's meddling with the Earth and to teach us haughty humans a lesson).

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Cofty said- Flamegrilled - are you seriously proposing that human activity may have caused the Asian tsunami?

My, that's a rather quick response from someone who only minutes eariler claimed human activity couldn't POSSIBLY have any effect on causing earthquakes? Anyway, you can't automatically blame the 2008 earthquake on God, since per this Gizmodo article (on the FIVE ways humans can cause earthquakes):

http://gizmodo.com/5-ways-humans-can-cause-earthquakes-1480705519

Dams and reservoirs — 2008 Sichuan, China earthquake

It's just water, but, man, water is heavy. Large reservoirs of water created by dams have a long history of inducing earthquakes, from Zambia to Greece to India. The 2008 earthquake in Sichuan, China, that killed nearly 70,000 people was one of the most devastating in recent memory, and some scientists think it was triggered by the construction of the Zipingpu Dam nearby.

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

FWIW, 'impotent' is the antonym of 'omnipotent'.

It's easy to make the mistake of assuming that ruling out one automatically implies the other, but that's the 'fallacy of the excluded middle' (elimination of alternatives). Obviously there's a spectrum of choices lying between the two end-points.

The adjective 'omnipotent' NEVER appears in the Bible, since it developed long-after the Bible was written. So to say "God is omnipotent" is anachronistic, using a word which never appeared in the Bible (although the concept appears in scriptures which are translated as, "With God, all things are possible").

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Flamegrilled said-

some of what you say may be true, but to address it we would have to turn this into a discussion about the existence of God. And Cofty is quite firm that this is not about that. He simply wishes to assert that the tsunami is a defeat to the viewpoint of a Christian theist, but logically speaking there is no reason to make that conclusion.

No, you don't.

I made it about God to demonstrate how the belief system operates as a system within theology, but the argument of appealing to mysterious ways of some "higher beings" (i.e. doctor from the viewpoint of a child) IS valid, and works when taken out of the loop.

However, it IS used to justify a belief in God, in the face of 'natural evil' (it's actually used along with the 'benign neglect' theodicy I mentioned before), but it rests on the questionable premise of the existence of God who IS a "higher power", a belief which requires FAITH.

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Cofty said- Humans have had absolutely zero influence on plate tectonics.

You might want to check those "facts" before you spout off as an expert, Cofty, as you're just flat-out wrong, and you don't get to make up your own facts (you should be embarrassed):

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worst-earthquakes-disasters-gas-extraction-mining-oil-528373

It's called 'induced seismicity', and it's a problem in the States from oil-well drilling (esp with use of fracking techniques).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Cofty said-

The summary is fair and balanced.

Are you actually resorting to the old fallacy, "appeal to Fox News slogan" as if it'll be persuasive?

Flamegrilled said- No it doesn't. You can dismiss the pet analogy all you like, but the fact remains that we CAN conceive of a circumstance whereby it seems irrational to reconcile the loving nature of a higher being from the viewpoint of a being that has more limited ability to assess the true facts. If we CAN conceive of such a situation then we cannot dismiss that such a thing is occurring in our case. If we cannot dismiss it, then we cannot say that any form of human suffering ("natural evil" as you call it, or otherwise) proves a fatal flaw in theistic belief.

Yep.

Hell, we don't even have to use a pet analogy: having treated many human infants and small children over my career, I know first-hand that even human children and infants will bite, kick, scream, cry, and struggle as if their lives depending on fighting off the attempts of the doctor, staff (and even their own mother) to treat them, since they truly don't understand the concept of the a "higher-being" (AKA adults) inflicting short-term pain that possibly could lead to some greater long-term benefit. Of course, the Bible primes believers for such thinking by referring to them as "children", eg the CHILDREN of Israel.

So whether you poo-pooh it as illogical or not, the whole "God's ways are mysterious, and beyond us" IS one of the primary methods used within the Bible itself to address the problem of 'natural evil', and it apparently must not be such a problem for theists, since 85% of the World's populace professes a belief in God. It's only a problem for those who are dogmatically set in their beliefs, and refuse to see the big picture of a belief system that is self-supported by such psychological manipulations.

It's actually a GREAT example of circular logic in action, since it starts with the person accepting the unsupported premise of belief in an God (for which absolutely no evidence exists), adding in the premise of this God being greater than we can possibly comprehend, and then appealing to that ineffability whenever a natural disaster arises that challenges that belief in a God.

Logically, it IS a valid argument, only it's a circular argument, since it relies on accepting the first unsupported premise of God's existence, based on faith, alone (faith being the super-glue that holds it all together).

You cannot defeat theism with logic by challenging the pieces separately as if they operate in isolation from each other, since as I said, it's called a BELIEF SYSTEM, one that is irreducably-complex and self-repairing, and ultimately is held together not by relying on LOGIC, but FAITH (a polite way of saying 'dogmatic thinking', i.e. belief in what we WANT to believe, where the more-intelligent ones will engage in much-more elaborate post-hoc rationalizations in order to justify those beliefs).

That's exactly WHY the Bible goes on-and-on constantly about the importance of faith, and makes faith such a virtue, a trait which is the key to one's salvation: it's the glue that holds it all together, and if you're willing to accept ANY premises on faith, there's literally NO idea so illogical and outrageous that you will not believe it.

Adam

285

Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah in

there's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.

code ann.

166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.

adamah

Apo said- adamah, we're really talking past each other, not at each other (in fact, this seems to happen between a lot of people and you, on this forum).

Tone trolling? Any unsolicited suggestions to help me overcome my ignorant reasoning, or work on my tone?

Apo said- Comatose then got angry at us for suggesting that the family's wish to take the mother off life support was wrong, so I was simply pointing out sarcastically that forums do not constitute 'telling someone what to do'. Forums are for discussion for the sake of personal expression and information exchange; they are not legally binding judgments, and the parties being discussed will never even see these posts.

OF COURSE Comatose and I didn't mean it LITERALLY, as if JWN members were telling Erick Munoz what to do! That's a straw-man distraction, since OBVIOUSLY the family isn't reading here...

The BROADER POINT is that Texas STATE LAW in essence means that others who engaged in such 'busy-body' intrusive thinking that violates personal autonomy rights have already decided for the Munoz family 15 years ago, LONG BEFORE this situation came up; the decision was removed from the Munoz family's hands years ago. The legislators in Austin passed a law based on such theologically-driven wish-based 'busy-body' thinking, in essence codifying those sentiments into 199.049.

Apo said- I offered a rational argument for my viewpoint.

Yeah, and what was it again?

In fact, if you'd like to argue the case of the State of Texas, explaining how the best interests of the citizens of the State are served and outweigh the rights of the family to respect personal autonomy, with the State intruding into what should be an intensely private and personal family matter, then be my guest. We haven't seen a discussion of the issue since it went off the rails after degenerating into tired ol' shop-worn emotional appeals (devoid of an argument, AKA flak).

Adam