Originally posted by mossrose
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Alabama Abortion Ban:
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostOr "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 PostBut, 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.
JimMy 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 PostJim,
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.
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?
JimLast 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 PostI 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
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 PostIf 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"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 PostThat 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 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?
JimMy 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 PostWell, 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.
JimLast 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.
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.
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 PostAre 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.
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 PostI 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.
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
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 PostI 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
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 PostSo you would allow a consensual mother who threatened to kill herself to have an abortion too?
So now we are down to convenience?
JimMy 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 PostI 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
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
57 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
7 responses
44 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 04:51 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
156 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment