Video: Preemie born at 9.5 oz finally goes home

posted at 10:00 am on January 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday was the 39th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, so it was a little surprising to The Morning Spew to see ABC feature this heartwarming story of the survival of the third-smallest preemie ever, which the network aired on Saturday. Did ABC connect the dots on this story, which emphasizes life, or was it just a coincidence of programming?

When I saw this video, my mind flashed back to an evening in October, when I attended an event by Pro-Life Action Ministries in which former Planned Parenthood manager-turned-pro-life convert Abby Johnson spoke. Her speech lasted well over a half-hour, but I put together a few short highlights about her painfully honest recollection of her work at PP. Her description of the sterile Newspeak about the outcomes of abortions was especially chilling — and even more so when considering the child who just went home with her parents:

As a grandparent of two girls myself, the first revelation took my breath away, but the second was more instructive. Planned Parenthood wants to pose abortion as an antiseptic tissue removal service, but Johnson’s explanation of the “POC” (products of conception) work is just ghastly. It’s an explanation that exposes the lie that abortions only expel a lump of tissue, and it should be heard more often in the discussion over abortion. (Interestingly, it’s difficult to find links to “POC technician” in the US, but here’s a want ad in India that explains exactly what is involved.)

The “miracle baby” was a product of conception, too. Kudos to ABC for airing this segment on the weekend when pro-abortion advocates celebrate the disposal of millions of “products of conception” over the last 39 years.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

*sheer

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I just gotta add this. Godless-random intimates that premature birth is the result of bad genetics. If only it were that simple…that’s assuming that premature birth is the result of an allele, or a set of alleles. Maybe that ‘trait’ has one or many loci, its the result of epigenesis, and there could be a behavioural or environmental affect.

But hey, let’s murder babies! It’s what proper pagan societies do.

tom daschle concerned on January 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM

We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive as reproduce, and striving to put death off unnecessarily generally.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführerschule SS, had the same outlook on life. He was serious about enforcing this bizarre theory. Are you?

timberline on January 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

While I was a preemie and that certainly had a bearing on my autism…autism also tends to run in families. My late father was almost certainly autistic(Asperger’s-like me) and my extremely bright, well-adjusted soon-to- be-high school(he TAUGHT his history class last week) graduate son is probably on the spectrum as well. It’s very possible that one of my VERY(glares at son’s photo in warning) future grandkids will be autistic as well.

I supposed that Random thinks that it’s a shame that I wasn’t ‘Carrie Buck’d’ before I had my son so that i wouldn’t pass my defective, autistic genes on to another generation.
Grrrrr.
Hissssssss.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Grrrrr.
Hissssssss.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Easy, girl. If you bite, you could catch something.

Just saying – don’t want to see you hurt.

platypus on January 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So on shear numbers alone, one could say one is worse than the other, even of one thought both were horridically bad.

Which was a worse war? The invasion of Grenada, or World War 1?

It isn’t a difficult question to answer, if or can just use reason.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

This is an example of the silliness of the leftover raggedy thought stylings of Postmodern Relativism and moral equivalencies imo.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

First…and God bless that kid. Hope he grows up to do good in the world.

MooCowBang on January 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM

“First” Really? Are you like, 6 years old or something? Too bad HA doesn’t have the same policy many other blogs have “If you’re immature enough to announce you have the first post, it will be deleted”.
Did someone tell you there’s a prize for announcing you have the first post? Is there a race I wasn’t aware of?
Ok, we all know you were “first”, happy?

SuperManGreenLantern on January 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

“they should really be classes around self esteem”

Why?

There is no evidence self esteem causes increased life success. Self control is the psychological trait which most strongly predicts life success.

Self esteem is largely a function of feeling good. Sub-Saharan descended African teenagers have the highest recorded self-esteem levels in America compared to other races, and yet have higher teen pregnancy rates.

In all likelihood, these two traits are biologically linked to higher than average testosterone levels (approximately 15% higher than Caucasians). Testosterone is both a hormone which makes people feel good and increases desire for sexual activity.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Kudos to ABC for airing this segment on the weekend when pro-abortion advocates celebrate the disposal of millions of “products of conception” over the last 39 years.

Tens of millions.

Mr. Prodigy on January 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Random is trolling for fun imo.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

* Sub-Saharan descended Africanmerican teenagers have the highest recorded self-esteem levels in America compared to other races, and yet have higher teen pregnancy rates.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Would you mind fleshing out your argument a little more on how you are defining “better” also the survival is easy part. I have to assume here heyday refers to China’s practice of infanticide?
“Which is a worse war?” flip that for a second, Which is a better war? Neither no war is good?
So help me with my reasoning, please.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

if a woman becomes pregnant and she believes she is not equipped to properly care for her child, that she is unprepared to be a mother and that she does not want to put her body through pregnancy, that she can choose to terminate her pregnancy legally.

And my view is this – tough noogies. Once the woman becomes pregnant, it’s not her decision anymore because there is another life to consider. If she becomes pregnant and can’t take care of the baby, there are PLENTY of couples who would be more than happy to adopt the baby and care for it.

And “put her body through pregnancy”? Are you kidding me? So really, the bottom line is that it’s so that she doesn’t have to be inconvienenced.

Prudish attitudes towards sex has nothing to do with it.

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM

SuperManGreenLantern on January 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

You must be new here.
Moo was first because Bishop is always first-even if he doesn’t comment in a thread.
It’s in his Ohio union contract-so he claims.
Anyone else that calls firsties is just a place holder.
That’s how we do it @ HA.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

*This is an example of the silliness of the leftover raggedy thought stylings of Postmodern Relativism and moral equivalencies imo.

No, dumbass. Many countries involved in destruction with millions (of mostly fit, healthy young people no less) killed and maimed is better than hundreds. Yes, I believe your emotional superstitious absolute-thinking mind didn’t see this fact, but reasonably and logically it is so.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

SuperManGreenLantern on January 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Its a hat tip tradition, see Bishop.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Hats off to you! Autism can very often lead to very creative means of a person rewiring their brains to wonderful effect…….you annoyinglittletwerp!:)

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

No, dumbass. Many countries involved in destruction with millions (of mostly fit, healthy young people no less) killed and maimed is better than hundreds. Yes, I believe your emotional superstitious absolute-thinking mind didn’t see this fact, but reasonably and logically it is so.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You don’t get it. You’re showing my claim to be true imo. You’re stuck with the relativists perception trap…i.e. most everything can be seen as somehow relative to everything else. The fact that both situation have, as part of their equation, the death of human beings, has nothing to do with each other on a “real” basis..a “theoretical” basis..nor are they in any way morally equivalent.

I predict that you will be unable to understand this concept.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

if a woman becomes pregnant and she believes she is not equipped to properly care for her child, that she is unprepared to be a mother and that she does not want to put her body through pregnancy, that she can choose to terminate her pregnancy legally.

And my view is this – tough noogies. Once the woman becomes pregnant, it’s not her decision anymore because there is another life to consider. If she becomes pregnant and can’t take care of the baby, there are PLENTY of couples who would be more than happy to adopt the baby and care for it.

And “put her body through pregnancy”? Are you kidding me? So really, the bottom line is that it’s so that she doesn’t have to be inconvienenced.

Prudish attitudes towards sex has nothing to do with it.

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Exactly.
When I got pregnant I had all the maternal instinct of a gnat and I was popping diet pill and diuretics like they were M&Ms. Despite being married I was the LAST person who should have been pregnant…but once we found out that we were expecting Spawn…NONE of that mattered. It wasn’t my baby’s fault that I was effed up!!!!
My only child turns 18 in a little over two months. I’m proud of the mensch that my son has become/is becoming.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Would you mind fleshing out your argument a little more on how you are defining “better” also the survival is easy part. I have to assume here heyday refers to China’s practice of infanticide?
“Which is a worse war?” flip that for a second, Which is a better war? Neither no war is good?
So help me with my reasoning, please.

Oh, FFS. Let’s start with your last one first.

The better war is the one that destroys the least. Which is a better car accident? The one where someone’s foot was broken? We can all agree that wasn’t “good”. But it’s a hell of a lot better than the 19 car pile-up with 31 injuries and 6 fatalities.

I was referring to ancient civilizations who practiced infanticide, and also to per-civilization groups.

Better on selective infanticide vs. abortion? I made the argument in a previous post.

Kills less people.
Kills less healthy people.
In some cases, kills people whose quality of life would be such that they would not likely enjoy it as much due to their disability.

This isn’t to call it “good”. But it is, logically, better than something that kills more people, and more healthy people.

If you can’t grasp this, I really don’t care.

Consider this. You’re a battalion commander where your emotion means s—all and you have to make logical, reasoned decisions, and you DEFINITELY have to consider “relative” outcomes.

Which is better? A battle where you lose three quarters of your command, and ultimately achieve your objective? Or a battle where you lose 22 dead, 7 wounded, and achieve your objective? (or fail to achieve your objective in both cases, for that matter)

It isn’t “good” to be one of the dead’s family members, but there are a heck of a lot less people lowing in the second example, so this is the better one.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

*pre-civilization groups

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM

*It isn’t “good” to be one of the dead’s family members, but there are a heck of a lot less people losing in the second example, so this is the better one.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

My apologies to Moo and the group. I feel like an idiot. I’ll just stick to the subject at hand. Again, please accept my apology.

SuperManGreenLantern on January 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Before you decide who lives and dies, why don’t you think for possibly 2 seconds?

NerwenAldarion on January 23, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I agree. My 2nd daughter was born 2 1/2 months premature. She weighed 2 lbs 10 3/4 oz. She is now in her early 20′s, and has our first grandchild. When I hear people argue that she wasn’t human, or that parents should be able to kill their children, I can’t believe it…

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You play the hand you’re delt.
I don’t worry about what might-have-been.
There’s a reason why I chose the handle that I did. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Mimzey, things are relative.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Which was a worse war? The invasion of Grenada, or World War 1?

It isn’t a difficult question to answer, if or can just use reason.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Abortion is worse than both wars you mentioned. It has killed over 40 million lives in the US alone.

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Abortion is worse than both wars you mentioned. It has killed over 40 million lives in the US alone.

dominigan on January 23, 2012

Yeah, now that is a fair point. And actually a logical one.

You grasp the concept.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Abortion is worse than both wars you mentioned. It has killed over 40 million lives in the US alone.

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Agreed.
Without the right to be born…NOTHING else matters!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM

If you can’t grasp this, I really don’t care.
Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

No need for that tact. I am merely trying to understand your logic or there lack of. Now back to reading your comment.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Random
Your point about medical intervention is fuzzy at best. What level of intervention is allowable? Who gets to decide? It’s a very grey area and we never know for sure how the human body is going to react to intervention.

or understand why kids with massive disabilities would not want to live with them.

Lots of children live with severe disabilities and have happy lives.
Who is to say what the cutoff is for acceptable level of disability. When a baby is born with a disability, often it isn’t known how severe until the child is older, weeks, months sometimes years.

Medical science improves by pushing the enevelope on such things. How long did the first heart transplant patient live? How long do they live now?

This little baby will likely grow up to have a productive life and be cherished by her family and friends. Isn’t that enough for her life to be worthwhile?

hopeful on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Grrrrr.
Hissssssss.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Yep, sounds like Tonya Harding, alright.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

For many years, being fervently pro-life probably have been my defining political opinion. I had others; this was the inviolate one.

Even during that time, I was nonplussed that pro-choicers would be horrified at limited, selective infanticide of the severely disabled, perhaps similar to that practiced in Sparta but more restrictive … and yet millions upon millions of healthy children aborted at their parents’ convenience didn’t phase them in the slightest. I chalk this up to cowardice and squeamishness, them not wanting to see and do the bloody deed themselves after hearing their baby cry. But as long as it was done by someone else and they didn’t have to see it, it’s a natural right and a good thing with them.

I’m not squeamish. I say if you’re going to do it, see it. And if it bothers you so damn much (infanticide), then perhaps you shouldn’t be hiring a doctor in a white coat to do it for you (abortion).

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Yep, sounds like Tonya Harding, alright.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

FLINK!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I think when it comes to the relationship between sex ed, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc, I think two things are conflated here: The Peggy Sue narrative, where an innocent teenager in love isn’t careful “just this once,” and the Dolieanna narrative, where a girl in a bad neighborhood sees teen motherhood with its attending entry into the welfare state as a means of escaping her home.

Peggy Sue is actually less common than Dolieanna, but sex ed is geared towards Peggy Sue. Dolieanna doesn’t need to put a condom on a banana. She needs to understand her dope-dealer boyfriend is probably going to walk away. If she aborts when Dope Dealer walks away, the next guy’s gonna walk away, too. Any man willing to knock her up is likely to leave her. She needs to have one of those crying dolls for a month. She needs to have a project where she tries to find out what kind of luxury accommodations she can afford on Section 8. But then, that’s dissing welfare, and we Just Can’t Have That in our schools.

Sekhmet on January 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Mimzey, things are relative.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

You did it again..thanks for helping to show what I mean.

You’re reply is a non sequitur..it as no relation to the claim made nor does it address or give evidence to any position.

In your position, as I understand it, what is the difference in this example:

World wide, millions of people die of the flu.

Most of the people who dies of the flu are:
the very young
the very old
people with preexisting vulnerabilities
people with immune deficiencies
people who are malnourished.

These are weaknesses that harm the general human gene pool.

In your judgement, should flu vaccinations be eliminated?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Abortion is worse than both wars you mentioned. It has killed over 40 million lives in the US alone.
dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Agreed.
Without the right to be born…NOTHING else matters!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Reword that to:

“Without the right to NOT be murdered in the womb, by the hand of man . . . NOTHING else matters.”

Unfortunately, there are still some diseases/illnesses that can kill babies in the womb, that we haven’t found cures for YET. We can’t currently ‘charge’ sickness and disease with murder.
BUT we can overturn Roe vs Wade, and ENFORCE it.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM

The thing is, the harder it is to recognize someone’s right to draw a breath, the more crucial it is. If humanity is going to prove itself worthy of surviving, it can’t do it on a case by case basis.

Elosha on January 23, 150,000 B.C. at 12:08 PM

The Schaef on January 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Random, in my opinion, you should have quit while you were ahead.
There was at least a smattering of truth in your original post.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM

FLINK!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

OUCH . . . . . . ooooh, that smarts. I’m telling on you.

ED . . . ALT’s picking on me for no reason.
She FLINKed me, and everything!

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM

The better war is the one that destroys the least.

A lot of lefties would say that WWI was the “better war” and we had no business being in Greneda.

And to take your straw-man arguement further, shouldn’t we all be striving for a world where there’s NO war?

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

The thing is, the harder it is to recognize someone’s right to draw a breath, the more crucial it is. If humanity is going to prove itself worthy of surviving, it can’t do it on a case by case basis.

Our worthiness to survive has nothing to do with our subjective emotions: subjective emotions designed to help us survive.

Anyway, we’re creating artificial intelligences that will soon supplant us as the dominant force on this planet, and probably exterminate us as they exponentially improve and continue to evolve. THIS is our purpose, if anything.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM

shouldn’t we all be striving for a world where there’s NO war?

Technology and cvilization have reduced the per-capita incidence of war going back thousands of years, and this trend is only accelerating. We can “strive” all we want, but it’s happening anyway.

We’re territorial, oft-homicidal animals instinctively, as are other closely-related primates such as chimpanzees, so I don’t know whether it’s possible for us to eliminate war. But we are heading in that direction.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM

. . . . . . shouldn’t we all be striving for a world where there’s NO war?
crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

We should exert all known ‘methods’ at our disposal to resolve conflict before resorting to war.
BUT only an idealistic atheist could believe that ‘the elimination of all future wars’ is a tenable goal.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM

libfreeordie – every time a liberal or pro-choice person opens their mouth, they immediately show the bankrupt illogic of their fallacious argument. You appeal to laws and ignore humanity. You say you don’t hate life or babies, yet you have zero problem with the concept of abortion which kills unborn human beings. It’s a sliding scale of value for you and others like you, all based in relativism, which at its immediate base is self-contradictory, philosophically obtuse and morally lacking.
If a woman feels she cannot care for her child, there is such a thing as adoption. Killing an innocent human being does not have to be an automatic go-to “option”. Yet that is clearly what liberals and socially liberal libertarians automatically jump to. Out of site, out of mind. If I cannot see it, it’s just a mass of tissue. If I cannot see it, then it’s not human, it’s not alive, it’s not my baby.
Sex ed and the discussion about sex is a red herring used by the left. The right discusses it because our society has lurched leftward where sex has no value and we are told to give in to our hedonistic desires. The left teaches zero responsibility before sex or at any stage after birth. Sex ed may teach about “safe” sexual techniques and realities, but responsibility never enters the equation, and hevean forbid that parents and the government teach responsibility for your actions. Oh wait, yeah, they do… go kill your “mistake”, so you can continue on with your life the way you want.
Abortion is a very ignorant, selfish act and its proponents are downright ugly, no matter how much lipstick, straw and fish you try to cover your arguments with.

As for clostegop, I only hope that you continue to re-evaluate and truly think about what you believe, because your position is contradictory. Either life is valuable or it is not. Your libertarianism is in sharp contradictive contrast to your professed pro-life claim.

In other words, your stance is like so much lukewarm water. You cannot have it both ways.

Logus on January 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM

We can “strive” all we want, but it’s happening anyway.

So according to your own arguement, the killing of children, whether unborn or throught “selective infanticide” should be “happening anyway.”

You really don’t make sense, and when you do it’s pretty freakin’ frightening.

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM

For many years, being fervently pro-life probably have been my defining political opinion. I had others; this was the inviolate one.

Even during that time, I was nonplussed that pro-choicers would be horrified at limited, selective infanticide of

Lets play “One Thing is Not Like The Other”…
Can you spot it?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM

We should exert all known ‘methods’ at our disposal to resolve conflict before resorting to war.
BUT only an idealistic atheist could believe that ‘the elimination of all future wars’ is a tenable goal.

I was just using that to turn Random’s strawman arguement back on itself (and show how flawed an analogy it actually was).

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Anyway, we’re creating artificial intelligences that will soon supplant us as the dominant force on this planet, and probably exterminate us as they exponentially improve and continue to evolve. THIS is our purpose, if anything.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Bullshit…and you can’t back up that claim.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

So according to your own arguement, the killing of children, whether unborn or throught “selective infanticide” should be “happening anyway.

Huh?

I’m saying the evidence is strong that both interpersonal violence and intra-societal violence has been in decline for thousands of years. “Striving” for peace may have been part of it, but bigger parts are probably developments of laws and customs and also of more lethal technology, which paradoxically reduces the numbers of warriors required to wield it against each other. There are many factors.

I’m saying this trend is real, prolonged, and doesn’t seem to require direct striving. It’s an emergent phenomena, as are most.

The idea that our individual human wills is the main thing controlling the world or even our lives is an illusion.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Logus on January 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Close the thread here.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Thanks. : )

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Bullshit…and you can’t back up that claim.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012

It’s a prediction, and a logical one. The growth of intelligence has been exponential since the Cambrian explosion, has been accelerating during human evolution which added cultural knowledge accumlation and now language and technology to the mix, and is increasing exponentially in the artificial intelligences we’re developing.

It is all but inevitable that our limited intelligences will be inferior in the near future.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Anyway, we’re creating artificial intelligences that will soon supplant us as the dominant force on this planet, and probably exterminate us as they exponentially improve and continue to evolve. THIS is our purpose, if anything.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM

THIS is what results when persons get their worldview from the movies and other sorts of fiction.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Anyway, we’re creating artificial intelligences that will soon supplant us as the dominant force on this planet, and probably exterminate us as they exponentially improve and continue to evolve. THIS is our purpose, if anything.
Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM

“Artificial Intelligence” cannot take over the planet, except in the Terminator movies.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:41 PM

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:41 PM

He should have quit while he was ahead. If he had just presented his original post as an observation rather than an argument, he might have given us something to think about.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM

“Artificial Intelligence” cannot take over the planet, except in the Terminator movies.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012

They are taking over the world.

This curve is exponential. Small now. Will get massive.

Hawking — whom I often disagree with about pure physics — has this right.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM

It’s a prediction, and a logical one. The growth of intelligence has been exponential since the Cambrian explosion, has been accelerating during human evolution which added cultural knowledge accumlation and now language and technology to the mix, and is increasing exponentially in the artificial intelligences we’re developing.
It is all but inevitable that our limited intelligences will be inferior in the near future.
Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The following statement is axiomatic, until proven otherwise.

It is impossible for any creation to become superior to it’s creator.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM

At any rate, the original topic is heartwarming nonetheless.

A sharp stick in the eye of the abortionists always makes my day, as well.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM

It’s a prediction, and a logical one. The growth of intelligence has been exponential since the Cambrian explosion, has been accelerating during human evolution which added cultural knowledge accumlation and now language and technology to the mix, and is increasing exponentially in the artificial intelligences we’re developing.

It is all but inevitable that our limited intelligences will be inferior in the near future.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

So you concede the point..you cannot back up the claim with anything other than your emotion based belief system…..and then you go on to make another unsupportable claim.
Thanks.

Just to catch up…will you answer my question to you in my 12:08 post?
Thanks.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Do I have to spell it out? Seems I do.

1) You equated A to B. A being the medically induced (or medically neglected) deaths of children. B being war.
2) You asked which was “better” WWI or Greneda, in order to
3) Justify killing disabled children based on the fact that there would allegedly be “less” deaths than those caused by abortions.

I pointed out that:
1) War is horrible and we as humans should do everything we can to avoid it or even eliminate it (and yes, I know it is impossible to eliminate it completely)
2) If A = B, then by your own arguement if the elimination of A is good, then the elimination of B is also good.

The fact of less wars in current generations has nothing to do with it (and I would also argue that there is not less war. There’s plenty of war going on, most of them are smaller, region-based wars and not the huge slobberknockers that WWI and WWII were). My arguement was that if the elimination of war was a noble goal, then so should the elimination of the deaths of all children, whether or not they’re “healthy,” “disabled,” or “special needs.” According to your own strawman.

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Hawking — whom I often disagree with about pure physics — has this right. holds the same opinion as do I.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Isn’t that what you really meant?

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

It is impossible for any creation to become superior to it’s creator.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Isn’t that what you really meant?

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012

Sure.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM

“Artificial Intelligence” cannot take over the planet, except in the Terminator movies.

Don’t forget Matrix movies too! And anime.

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Just to catch up…will you answer my question to you in my 12:08 post?

No, and I did that on purpose, because you ignored all of my questions.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM

If we go back and save John Connor it will all be okay.

God Bless the lil cutie! May you live long and prosper.

Trinityangel on January 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM

At any rate, the original topic is heartwarming nonetheless.
Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yes it is.

And thanks for the reminder that ‘AI’ wasn’t the original topic.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Don’t forget Matrix movies too! And anime.

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

DOH!

How did I forget the Matrix?

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:54 PM

If we go back and save John Connor it will all be okay.

It’s doubtful that you could stop an emergent, evolutionary process that easily. Nuclear war might help, though, not that I’m prescribing it.

But it could. Or at least it might have when we had more warheads than at present.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I think I understand your position, my perception of your comments is that your argument is circular in nature and one which is based on an entrenched false premise. This flaw is what keeps you blindly auguring in circles. When two participants cannot share a core or may I say central starting point in a conversation, no intellectually honest debate can occur. Your mask slipped with the statement you made, “If you can’t grasp this, I really don’t care.”
Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM, this is an example of a statement made by someone who holds a untenable position in an moral argument. Again this is my perception of your statements. Perception/Reality the two can never be reconciled.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM

As the mother of triplets born at 23 weeks, I personally love this video. It’s always wonderful to see micropreemies beat the odds and go home.

TXRedhead on January 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

THIS is what results when persons get their worldview from the movies and other sorts of fiction.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Pretty much.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

They are taking over the world.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Who is this “they” of which you speak?

*que the.. “THEY’RE ALREADY HERE!!!” scene for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.*

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:04 PM

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life.
Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM

In the ‘sci fi is reality’ world of Stephen Hawking, that’s probably true.

I’ll reiterate:

The following statement is axiomatic, until proven otherwise.

It is impossible for any creation to become superior to it’s creator.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I believe that statement to be axiomatic, PERIOD.
I added the “until proven otherwise” qualifier just to humor you.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Bullshit…and you can’t back up that claim.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

It should be self evident that it is impossible to prove by direct calculation from base assumptions that we are going to create a superintelligence (smarter than humans) in advance. Once we can prove it, we will have created it.

It also should be self evident we are going to do it.

You do not figure it out in advance by calculation. You see it coming with pattern recognition.

However, it does not surprise me that people who cannot recognize the reality of evolution also fail to recognize the trend toward ever smarter machines has no practical limit until so far beyond human intelligence that it really doesn’t matter.

fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

As the mother of triplets born at 23 weeks, I personally love this video. It’s always wonderful to see micropreemies beat the odds and go home.

TXRedhead on January 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

WOW!!..Congrats! Hows things?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Good to see you, fadetogray.

I don’t doubt that many of the people here are intelligent, but it’s good to see that quality combined with having stripped away many biases that blind one to obvious truths.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM

It also should be self evident we are going to do it.

You do not figure it out in advance by calculation. You see it coming with pattern recognition.

However, it does not surprise me that people who cannot recognize the reality of evolution also fail to recognize the trend toward ever smarter machines has no practical limit until so far beyond human intelligence that it really doesn’t matter.

fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Bullshit.
That.Is.Your.False.Premise.
Its similar to your assumption that anyone who cannot see the brilliance of it must certainly not be able to recognize evolution.

Seriously…you guys are intellectually shallow and self absorbed in the veracity of your imaginations.
No Joke.

Do you believe in the existence of highly advanced space alien civilizations?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

“If you can’t grasp this, I really don’t care.”

This doesn’t mean I’m not willing to discuss ideas with someone open to thinking. It was in reference to a person not being able to grasp that two things can both be sh*tty (i.e., death), and one being worse than the other (for many reasons, including pure numbers of deaths).

And no, if a person can’t grasp that, and insists that nothing is relative, then I really don’t care. Things are relative. Clearly.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Do you believe in the existence of highly advanced space alien civilizations?

I don’t know. It seems likely. I don’t believe in them in the same way that people believe in a god or gods, more in an estimate/balance of probabilities sense.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

WOW!!..Congrats! Hows things?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

My sons are both waiting in Heaven for us. White boys actually have the lowest survival rates in the NICU. The nurses told us they call them ‘wimpy white boys’ because they just don’t do as well.

However, my daughter just turned 10 in September. She’s a high brown belt in karate and is doing well with homeschooling. She’s got some quirks but nothing major, and nothing you don’t find full-term children have.

We’re also blessed to know a boy in our church who was born at 24 weeks. His only issue is he wears glasses. Gosh, I hope someone warns his parents that horrible things are doomed to happen to him and that he wasn’t worth the money or effort. I know I always appreciate hearing those things about MY child. ;)

TXRedhead on January 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM

In a universe this large (the observable universe is just a tiny fraction of the whole universe, and in this fraction, there are more galaxies than there are stars in our galaxy — and there are quite a few stars in our galaxy) it seems probable that we would not be the only life and the only life to have achieved significant technology. But it’s possible that we are, of course.

What we can say for sure is highly advanced civilizations do occur.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I don’t doubt that many of the people here are intelligent, but it’s good to see that quality combined with having stripped away many biases that blind one to obvious truths.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Good to see you’re still on the thread…HEY!..while you’re “right there”, will you answer my 12:08 question to you?
Thanks.

You..can’t answer the question without being forced to see the shallowness of your position.
Answering difficult questions that challenge preconceived notions is how we learn..its how we evolve. You are pro evolution aren’t you?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I can answer the question, Mimzey, but while you insist that I answer yours while you’ve ignored several of mine isn’t going to happen. I demolished your position about the absolute equality of bad things. Things are relative, including involving death. I’m not going to rehash that. I asked you to address that, and you haven’t seriously: you’ve asked me about friggin’ vaccines.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM

You are pro evolution aren’t you?

It exists.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

What we can say for sure is highly advanced civilizations do occur.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Not really.
What we can say is that a highly advanced civilization has occurred.

Do you agree with this?
Can you explain the difference between the two?
Will you?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Oh for f sakes. If something happens once, and is happening at present, we can say they do happen. Also has happened, but definitely do, as it’s occurring now.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

It exists.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You’re being selectively evasive.
Why is that?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

You’re being selectively evasive.

Pro-evolution? It doesn’t matter whether I’m pro it or not, it’s a fact of life. But if you mean do I think we should avoid dysgenic policies, because they are ultimately inhumane (why would you breed a dog species to get weaker and weaker over generations? that doesn’t seem kind in the grand scheme of things), then yeah. I’m anti dysgenic policies.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Do you believe in the existence of highly advanced space alien civilizations?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

No. It’s a silly idea. Life is rare. The conditions that have led to the human species are so rare as to be a practical impossibility if the universe were not so vast.

This is one of those curious things that should be obvious (again through pattern recognition) yet many highly intelligent scientists cannot get themselves to accept it.

You and they have that kind of thing in common. You believe what makes you feel good even when the contrary is baring its fangs in front of your face. “Oh, it has big teeth so it must be like a horse.”

fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I have a doctor’s appointment, you all, because for whatever reasons my inferior genetics have not been weeded out of the gene pool.

Have a good day. Don’t kill any babies that I wouldn’t kill.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

You’re being selectively evasive.
Why is that?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Mimzey
Random has taken an untenable position having not thought thru it to its logical conclusion. Lazy like water? She is being arbitrary for the sake of being arbitrary. Circular and flawed.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Oh for f sakes. If something happens once, and is happening at present, we can say they do happen. Also has happened, but definitely do, as it’s occurring now.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

You’re being a relativist again and trying to stick a round peg into a square hole.

This is the only place that any intelligent life has evolved. That is a fact.
It is not “logical” that everything that has happened does happen elsewhere. That is just basically simplistic ..regardless of how much you want to lipstick it up.

Highly intelligent life has occurred here. Period.

When you claim that these processes do happen, what you imply is the plural. This is not factually based. They do not happen..It has happened. There is no “they”…just like there was no “they” in your claim of the advancement of artificial intelligences.

Perhaps you can provide evidence for these things?
If not, do you accept that your position is one of faith and belief?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Random has taken an untenable position having not thought thru it to its logical conclusion. Lazy like water? She is being arbitrary for the sake of being arbitrary. Circular and flawed.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I agree. This is often the condition of relativists.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

will you answer my 12:08 question to you?

He won’t answer that question because if he answers “no” that invalidates his “selective infanticide for the betterment of all” position. OTHO, if he answers “yes” that opens up an entirely new can of worms. If flu vaccinations are eliminated “for the betterment of all”, then by his own twisted logic, all medical treatments should be eliminated.

My question is – should someone with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer be killed and/or sterilized so they don’t have a child who might have breast cancer later in life?

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Perhaps you can provide evidence for these things?
If not, do you accept that your position is one of faith and belief?

Mimzey, a person like Random is what happens when one absorbs too much sci fi TV, movies, and books.

And on that note, I’ve got to get back to work. Have fun, everyone!

And God bless that little baby and her parents!

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Things are relative. Clearly.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Agreed. But realtive to what?

Or should I say, to Whom?

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

crazy_legs on January 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Exactly.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

You’re being a relativist again….

Yes. I am. Things are relative to each other.

This is the only place that any intelligent life has evolved. That is a fact.

No, it isn’t a fact. It’s an assertion.

You are so sloppy in your thinking, that I don’t consider you worth engaging.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Agreed. But realtive to what?

Or should I say, to Whom?

To whomever.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4