On 14 Jul 2003, Paolo Pizzi climbed into "alt.tv.star-
trek.enterprise", opened the box of crayons and scribbled the 
following:

>> You're complaining about me using smokescreens? Yet you're the 
>> one changing the conditions of the discussion? Gee, that seems 
>> "fair."
> 
> I'm changing the baby's age and disease because instead
> of answering the question you nitpick about the disease
> being someone else's responsibility and the 6 month old
> baby being able to eat and poop (BTW, does it mean
> animals are given "free" will too? But then again, according
> to christianity, animals don't go to heaven. Yet another
> contradition maybe?)

So you changed the babies age and disease because you didn't like 
my responses? Ok. At least you're willing to admit it. It's 
intellectually dishonest, but you own up to it.

But the fact that you couldn't see the point in my response is not 
something I can change. Repeating it now simply gives you yet 
another opportunity to complain about my response.
 
>> The concept of free will is not "given" it is innate. Even if 
>> one does not or cannot act on it, it is still there.
> 
> Hmmm, that's not what "will" means in my dictionary...
> Free or not free.

Picking at nits?
 
>> Sure, a 1 day old baby does not have the cognitive ability to
>> "chose" and may not yet even realize that when it's hungry it
>> should cry. But it doesn't suddenly "get" free will at the 6
>> month anniversary of it's birth.
> 
> will noun
> 
> 1 the aspect of mind involved in *choosing* or deciding
> <problems arise when one's will and judgment come
> in conflict> syn volition, rel design, intent, purpose,
> wishes; character, disposition, temper
> 
> 2 power of *controlling* one's actions, impulses, or
> emotions
> 
> Seems to me that without the ability to choose, there
> is no WILL, free or not.

The concept of free wil exists even if the baby is unable to act 
upon it. One day it will be able to act upon it, through no action 
of its parents or any outside individual.

>> Following the logic that one does not have free will when one
>> cannot act on it, then it also follows that we would lose it at
>> night when we are no longer conscious.
> 
> Following the logic that the simple act of living is "free will",
> then all animals have free will. Yet they are not allowed in
> heaven.

Thus begins the debate on just how cognizant animals actually are.

But then, haven't you ever heard of "doggie heaven"?
 
Derek

-- 

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific. Fain would I fathom thy 
nature specific. Loftily perched in the ether capacious, 
strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.