Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Alabama Abortion Ban:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    But, Jim, no one else has ever been created the same way Adam was. You can't use him as the baseline for when you think the soul enters a body. If you push that too far, then we can say that no one receives a soul until they are an adult, since Adam was formed as an adult male.
    Or "the breath of life" which some have used to argue that a baby is not a human being until it takes its first breath.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Or "the breath of life" which some have used to argue that a baby is not a human being until it takes its first breath.

      Which is why we have partial birth abortions.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        But, Jim, no one else has ever been created the same way Adam was. You can't use him as the baseline for when you think the soul enters a body. If you push that too far, then we can say that no one receives a soul until they are an adult, since Adam was formed as an adult male.
        I wasnt using that as an example of when. I was using it as an example of the process: forming the physical body, then granting it a soul, life.

        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
          Jim,

          With a rape exception and the mother's life in danger being the only 2 exceptions...how many more false accusations of rape are going to take place? I mean, they take place now for various reasons, very few of them because of rape. A woman who gets pregnant accidentally, may very well come to the conclusion that her only option is to claim rape in order to get a legal abortion. ISTM that the rape accusations could very well go up substantially...all for a nebulous idea that early fetal development isn't killing a human person. We all agree it's killing a human being. As a Christian, I'm surprised you don't come down more on the side of caution.
          If the exception for rape is the right way to deal with a pregnacy as a consequence of rape, then the fact someone might try to abuse that law cant be an excuse not to grsnt the exception. You deal with that sort of abuse by dealing with the individual cases 1 by 1, and making sure any such false accusations are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

          And you cant reduce the reason for the exception to just one element. Rape creates the circumstance where the interaction of the elements creates the need for the exception.

          Ive tried to explain that element of my position, why do so few lack the decency not to distort it when replying to my posts?

          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-19-2019, 12:28 PM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            I never said 'dependent'. I said 'emergent from' or 'created by God and implanted' with an acknowledgement I can't know which. Scripture is not precise enough to tell us which of the latter two is a better model for how a soul comes to be.


            Jim
            Well, most of the arguments you used in favor of your position in post #187 have been used by people who deny mind-body dualism to argue that the mind is dependent on the brain for it's existence. The only difference being that you speak of "the soul inhabiting the body", instead of "the mind being dependent on the brain" and that "we do not consider that the soul hangs around once [death] occurs", instead of "When the brain dies, the mind dies with it".

            If your position is that the soul emerges from, or is created by God and implanted sometimes during the development of the nervous system/brain, then I honestly don't see how anything of what you wrote in post #187 is supposed to lend support for that position. Your first argument, about inanimate objects, begs the question in assuming that an embryo is the same kind of "inanimate human tissue" as something like a severed extremity, while your other argument, about how changes in the brain can influence personality and other traits, only shows that something which influences the brain can and will influence the mind/soul as well. Someone who believes the soul inhabits the body long before the development of the nervous system will have no problems with accepting what you say as true, and still being no more obligated than he was before to think that the embryo doesn't have a soul until the nervous system/brain is sufficiently developed.

            Nothing of what you wrote in post #187 is actually a valid argument for your position, since no one who disagrees with your position on when the soul first inhabits the body should be rationally compelled to, after reading your post, even consider your position more likely. There is nothing about the facts that you provided in post #187 that is better explained by your position than by the position of someone who thinks the soul inhabits the body before the development of the nervous system/brain.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              If the exception for rape is the right way to deal with a pregnacy as a consequence of rape, then the fact someone might try to abuse that law cant be an excuse not to grsnt the exception. You deal with that sort of abuse by dealing with the individual cases 1 by 1, and making sure any such false accusations are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
              That already has very mixed results. I've seen it firsthand...and desperation will make women do things they would never normally do despite possible penalties.

              And you cant reduce the reason for the exception to just one element. Rape creates the circumstance where the interaction of the elements creates the need for the exception.
              I was simply bringing up one point that I haven't seen brought up...it's not the only reason I disagree with our position...just another reason I do.

              Ive tried to explain that element of my position, why do so few lack the decency not to distort it when replying to my posts?

              Jim
              What element of your position did I distort?
              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                That already has very mixed results. I've seen it firsthand...and desperation will make women do things they would never normally do despite possible penalties.
                I don't doubt it. But the law on this can't be decided on factors like that. It has to be based on what is right and just. We may disagree on what is right and just, but the fact some people might be motivated to exploit the exception is not a legitimate factor in deciding if the exception should exist.

                I was simply bringing up one point that I haven't seen brought up...it's not the only reason I disagree with our position...just another reason I do.

                What element of your position did I distort?
                You implied that the only or primary reason for my support for the exception is my belief there is a transition point before which the fetus can't be legitimately classified a 'person'. My position is not based on any single element but the combined weight of all of them.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • "Two wrongs do not make a right. The death of the baby will not heal the wounds of the mother."
                  -Dr. Alveda King

                  https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019...-civil-rights/
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    Well, most of the arguments you used in favor of your position in post #187 have been used by people who deny mind-body dualism to argue that the mind is dependent on the brain for it's existence. The only difference being that you speak of "the soul inhabiting the body", instead of "the mind being dependent on the brain" and that "we do not consider that the soul hangs around once [death] occurs", instead of "When the brain dies, the mind dies with it".
                    I don't get the point. Why would that matter? I'm not proposing the soul is not independent of the body, at least at death, though I don't think it makes sense to assume it preexists the body. The fact someone that doesn't believe in God would think the observed interaction between personality and the brain means there is no soul is irrelevant. There are a lot of people that think the evolution of the body implies there is no soul and even no God. That doesn't drive my own believe about God nor does it mean they are correct.

                    If your position is that the soul emerges from, or is created by God and implanted sometimes during the development of the nervous system/brain, then I honestly don't see how anything of what you wrote in post #187 is supposed to lend support for that position. Your first argument, about inanimate objects, begs the question in assuming that an embryo is the same kind of "inanimate human tissue" as something like a severed extremity, while your other argument, about how changes in the brain can influence personality and other traits, only shows that something which influences the brain can and will influence the mind/soul as well. Someone who believes the soul inhabits the body long before the development of the nervous system will have no problems with accepting what you say as true, and still being no more obligated than he was before to think that the embryo doesn't have a soul until the nervous system/brain is sufficiently developed.
                    I don't believe there is any means of proving much of anything about the soul. The Bible implies we have existence beyond death but very little if any information about how it comes to be. However, there is nothing that even hints at the idea that any of us exist in any form prior to our life here on earth. So I think the soul as an emergent or created phenomenon is the only possible Scriptural belief about it. And I also believe that since the procedure outlined in the creation of Adam did not involve the creation of body and soul as separate things, but rather the formation of the body and then God breathing life into that body, it is reasonable to conclude that the soul is in some manner emergent. If we then line that up with how, as I understand it, OT law in fact treats the unformed fetus differently that the formed fetus in the event men fighting kill the unborn baby, it seems reasonable to conclude that the personhood or soul of the child is not present early on in the process. Since scientifically the creation of neurons well precedes any possible ANE observation the fetus is 'formed', I think using neural activity as the first possible moment the fetus could be classified a 'person' is generous, and it has the added advantage of being a useful and objective criteria for both the beginning and the ending of personhood in a day and age when the life of the body and the life of the person can in fact be quite diifferent - especially at death (e.g. brain dead person on life support).

                    Nothing of what you wrote in post #187 is actually a valid argument for your position, since no one who disagrees with your position on when the soul first inhabits the body should be rationally compelled to, after reading your post, even consider your position more likely. There is nothing about the facts that you provided in post #187 that is better explained by your position than by the position of someone who thinks the soul inhabits the body before the development of the nervous system/brain.
                    It is hard to argue much of anything about the soul in a convincing manner unless one already believes in it and the authority of scripture, and even then, almost no information is given to us about it's formation. So I'm not surprised that if you are already against the concept of a rape exception based on the personal assumption the soul is placed in the zygote when it forms that you would find ANY argument for any alternate view unconvincing. Ideas that are not based on evidence or scripture can't be argued. They are axioms which can be neither proven nor disproven.

                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-20-2019, 08:15 AM.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                      The problem here is that you've picked an example that is covered under two different exceptions clauses. For a person that is suicidal, they could theoretically fall under the 'threat to the life of the mother' exception.
                      So you would allow a consensual mother who threatened to kill herself to have an abortion too?


                      But lets change it up just a bit. Suppose the issue is just the simple fact that her entire life is now put on hold for a year at least and that she has to go through the pregnancy and the financial hardship and the medical issues and the impact on any family or significant other and schooling and so on.

                      Consensual sex: No - sorry that was your choice.

                      Rape: OK, you do NOT have to accept that burden. You did not chose this.
                      So now we are down to convenience?

                      Again, what you are saying is that the hardship, the suffering, etc, doesn't matter. All that matters is the CAUSE of the pregnancy. The determining cause in whether a mother can get an abortion, for you, is if she is pregnant because of rape or incest she can choose to have an abortion. The rest is just a smoke screen as Mountain Man has said all along. An emotional argument.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Are you suggesting that a moral obligation can not be imposed? That we are only morally accountable in so far as we have agreed to accept the circumstances? You're going to have to flesh that one out, because I can't see any way for that premise to hold together.

                        You also continue to ignore the case of the woman who consented to sex but didn't intend to get pregnant -- or maybe she did -- and is now so overwhelmed by her circumstances that she has thoughts of suicide. Her life is every bit as much at risk as the rape victim, yet your "moral calculation" says it would be wrong for her to abort. This presents an irreconcilable conflict for your position.

                        You claim this isn't a back and white issue. I disagree, and so do you, I think. You even concede that it's entirely possible the soul is bound to our physical being at the moment of conception** thus eliminating any window of opportunity for terminating a pregnancy without it being murder, regardless of whether the mother was raped or had consensual sex, and trying to put abortion under the umbrella of "self-defense" is a self-evidently absurd rationalization because the baby is not actually doing anything to threaten the mother's life. It's entirely within her own head, and love, support, and counseling is the answer, not abortion.


                        **When making any moral evaluation that has unkown factors (such as the precise moment an eternal soul is bound to our physical being), yet those factors make the difference between an action being good, and an action being evil, we ought always to err on the side of good.
                        Jim, MM is asking some very good questions here. Your reasoning simply doesn't make sense on this subject. There are plenty of women who are extremely overwhelmed when they become pregnant no matter how the child was conceived. It's terribly distressing to them no matter what, to the point that they too could end up enduring "psychological and physical distress which can produce mental and physical illness" (though, in my experience, it isn't the pregnancy itself that's the cause of these symptoms).

                        In the case where the mother's life is in real physical risk, people usually choose between the mother or the child depending on who can be saved rather than letting both die. It's an alternative no one wants to face, but it's one made so that at least one of the lives can live. Framing it as a matter of self-defence is...peculiar...to say the least, and brings to my mind Carpe's really strange notion that mothers are slaves to their pregnancy.

                        But even supposing that only rape victims endure "psychological and physical distress which can produce mental and physical illness" (which is not guaranteed, and in my limited experience isn't the norm), isn't that better than killing a person? Isn't it better that two people live, even if one is broken, than that one innocent person lives, and you risk that the rape victim doesn't become more broken?

                        The only way that I can see you being logically consistent is if you believe that all abortion is wrong unless it's to save one or the other's life, or if you don't believe that a life begins at conception (which as I pointed out, I don't believe you have Biblical backing on), then abortion for anyone who requests it should be legal until the fetus is developed to the point you think it's a person. That seems to be the general consensus opinion of the Christians on the board, and I think you'll like find it to be the general consensus among Christians everywhere.

                        Out of curiosity, you do know that your view is idiosyncratic, not just here, but amongst Christians at large, right? Did you hear this view that you hold espoused by someone else, or is it wholly your own invention?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          I don't doubt it. But the law on this can't be decided on factors like that. It has to be based on what is right and just. We may disagree on what is right and just, but the fact some people might be motivated to exploit the exception is not a legitimate factor in deciding if the exception should exist.
                          We disagree even more then. I think it needs to factored in...your hand wave aside. Just simply saying "well it'll need to be verified on a case by case basis" is easy to say. How is it mitigated? what if a girl shows up 5 or 6 weeks pregnant and says I was raped and didn't realize I was pregnant. Dr: Did you report it? girl: No, I was too ashamed. There's zero proof, how do you verify it? Are we just going to take her word? Does she have to go ahead and report it? How long does she have to wait after reporting it? See, it's not just cut and dried.


                          You implied that the only or primary reason for my support for the exception is my belief there is a transition point before which the fetus can't be legitimately classified a 'person'. My position is not based on any single element but the combined weight of all of them.


                          Jim
                          Right back atcha Jim. Didn't you just assume the same about my argument? Double standard much?


                          Our arguments against, ALSO do not have a single element but the combined weight of all of them. You don't get special pleading.
                          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            I don't think so. When the body dies, the soul no longer inhabits it. We reject the concept of the soul as inhabiting inanimate objects or even inanimate human tissue such as an arm or a leg if they are severed. Therefore it is reasonable not to expect a soul to inhabit the inanimate human tissue developing into the baby until it reaches the point it has some capacity to be an animate being - which does not occur until the nervous system develops. We also know that the personality and state of being is inextricably tied to the brain. Damage the brain, and the person can indeed change - sometimes completely. We also recognize death has occurred when the brain ceases to function. We do not consider that the soul hangs around once that occurs. I'm merely looking at all of this and logically applying it in reverse. Before there is a brain, there is no person there yet.

                            Jim
                            And you are willing to stake that soul's existence on your theory?

                            The fact remains that even if the soul doesn't inhabit the body before a certain point, by aborting the fetus, you are stopping that soul from having a life.

                            My theory is that a human being IS a combination of body and soul, right from the beginning. Prove me wrong.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              So you would allow a consensual mother who threatened to kill herself to have an abortion too?
                              I didn't say anything about 'allowing'. If a Medical Doctor can certify that the fetus presents a threat to the life of the mother, she can get an abortion under the current exception. If that medical doctor is a psychiatrist and the threat is PTSD and/or clinical depression with suicidal tendencies, that that would meet the current exceptions criteria as far as I know.



                              So now we are down to convenience?
                              You really are just out to degrade and demean here aren't you. Is the any possibility for civil discussion?



                              Jim
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                I was waiting for that one. That doesnt imply anything about when the soul comes to be. If it did, it would mean our soul pre-exists our bodies. God knows across all of time. This verse is not about our existence but rather His own.

                                I think we can draw clues about this from Genesis. God forms Adam, THEN, When the bodyvwas formed He breathed into him the breath of life. The forming precedes the introduction of life and the soul. And again, tthe section on how to deal with the punishment of a man who kills an unborn child. As I see it, the indications are that the unforned body is not yet fully a living soul.

                                Jim
                                I would rather err on the side of life instead of standing before Jesus one day and him telling me that my support of abortion before I thought a soul was attached was wrong and my ideas contributed to the deaths of countless lives. How about you?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X