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

Christianity Today Op Ed

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

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    And here I thought we'd had a reasoned discussion up to your last couple of taunts. Should I be more skeptical of your honesty in the future?
    Pointing out your ignoring basic biology and embryology as you wax eloquently about philosophy is an honest assessment. Whether you are skeptical of my honesty or not doesn't matter to me. I have the science on my side and I refuse to argue from a religious perspective. As I stated, life IS black and white. A human being is either alive and moving along the normal progression of growth and development, or not alive. There is no "potential" state.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Pointing out your ignoring basic biology and embryology as you wax eloquently about philosophy is an honest assessment. Whether you are skeptical of my honesty or not doesn't matter to me. I have the science on my side and I refuse to argue from a religious perspective. As I stated, life IS black and white. A human being is either alive and moving along the normal progression of growth and development, or not alive. There is no "potential" state.
      Bill - you've been all over the map. And no, you don't have science on your side on this.
      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 Bill the Cat View Post
        You haven't had a reasonable post thus far. Why stop now? I've discussed the actual biology of human growth and development and embryology, as has MM. You and Sam have gone off about "head in a jar", cartoons, and science fiction. I'll take the reasoned side of science over your unreasonable biological ignorance.
        "I'm over here discussing actual Newtonian physics and you ignorant dopes are trying to get me to talk about cats in boxes and 'spooky particles'. What nonsense."

        That's the problem with being blinkered: you don't know the scope of what's being discussed or even the real foundation of your own argument. And if the narrow view is all you'll ever bother to see, you'll wind up thinking that's all there is to it.

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd
          I have not ignored anything.
          Yes you have and you continue to do so.

          You can say this is a developing human body from day one.
          It is a human member of our species. You're playing mealy mouth with terms. We develop our entire life.

          But you can't claim it IS a human body until the body parts form.
          Then is it a cat body? A dog body? Perhaps a platypus?

          Likewise, the human person is 100% dependent upon the existence of the brain itself.
          And the heart. And the lungs. And the digestive system. And the endocrine system. And the nervous system. Heck, even the skeletal system to a degree.

          Without a brain, there is no human person their.
          Actually, yes there is. It may be dead, but it's still a person.

          And it is the human person that defines if killing the body is murder or not.
          If your heart is removed from your chest, you die, despite the brain being intact. Technology may be able to keep the body going, but that's possible for brain-dead people as well.

          So if the discussion is about when there is a human person, then you have to talk about when the brain forms.
          False. There is no difference between a human organism and a human being. Again, mealy mouthed pseudo terms to make your point.

          If there is a discussion about is there a human body, then you must wait for some subset of the body parts to form.
          Again, if it isn't a HUMAN body, what species is it?

          If it is before either of those, then it is neither a human body or a human person, it is a developing human blatocyst, or fetus etc.
          Source: https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_body


          Body

          Definition
          noun, plural: bodies
          (1) The physical structure or of an organism, whether living or dead

          © Copyright Original Source



          No matter what stage of development the organism is in. It is a new human being.

          The terms define the stage of development, and some terms only apply once the developing fetus reaches a given stage of development. Extending human body to incorporate - say - the blastocyst is your own doing, it is not science.
          It's biology, Jim. Changing the biological definition of "body" is YOUR doing, not mine/science's.

          Science doesn't even talk about a human body until later in the gestation cycle.
          Science talks about an organism's body. What you are doing is moving to the philosophical:

          Source: https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_body


          Human body
          The human being as a non-anatomical and non-zoological entity. The emphasis is on the philosophical or artistic treatment of the human being, and includes lay and social attitudes toward the body in history.

          © Copyright Original Source



          For example, fetus itself is defined as:

          "However, a fetus is characterized by the presence of all the major body organs, though they will not yet be fully developed"
          Yeah. It's a stage in a human being's life.

          So fetus is the proper term for the gestational stage where the major [future] body organs are there in some nascant stage. It is an abuse of terminology to call that a 'body'.
          No, it's ignorance of terminology that denies it as the human's body. Even the Mayo clinic calls it a "baby's body" before it is called a fetus:

          Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302


          Week 6: The neural tube closes


          Fetal development four weeks after conception
          Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing. The baby's brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form.
          Structures necessary to the development of the eyes and ears develop. Small buds appear that will soon become arms. Your baby's body begins to take on a C-shaped curvature.

          © Copyright Original Source



          The term exists because it isn't a body yet and there needs to be a way of referring to it that makes sense, that recognizes the difference.
          Mayo Clinic or Oxmix…
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Bill - you've been all over the map. And no, you don't have science on your side on this.
            Sorry, but I responded to your since-deleted post with the science. It's solidly on my side.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Yes you have and you continue to do so.



              It is a human member of our species. You're playing mealy mouth with terms. We develop our entire life.



              Then is it a cat body? A dog body? Perhaps a platypus?



              And the heart. And the lungs. And the digestive system. And the endocrine system. And the nervous system. Heck, even the skeletal system to a degree.



              Actually, yes there is. It may be dead, but it's still a person.



              If your heart is removed from your chest, you die, despite the brain being intact. Technology may be able to keep the body going, but that's possible for brain-dead people as well.



              False. There is no difference between a human organism and a human being. Again, mealy mouthed pseudo terms to make your point.



              Again, if it isn't a HUMAN body, what species is it?



              Source: https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_body


              Body

              Definition
              noun, plural: bodies
              (1) The physical structure or of an organism, whether living or dead

              © Copyright Original Source



              No matter what stage of development the organism is in. It is a new human being.



              It's biology, Jim. Changing the biological definition of "body" is YOUR doing, not mine/science's.



              Science talks about an organism's body. What you are doing is moving to the philosophical:

              Source: https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_body


              Human body
              The human being as a non-anatomical and non-zoological entity. The emphasis is on the philosophical or artistic treatment of the human being, and includes lay and social attitudes toward the body in history.

              © Copyright Original Source





              Yeah. It's a stage in a human being's life.



              No, it's ignorance of terminology that denies it as the human's body. Even the Mayo clinic calls it a "baby's body" before it is called a fetus:

              Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302


              Week 6: The neural tube closes


              Fetal development four weeks after conception
              Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing. The baby's brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form.
              Structures necessary to the development of the eyes and ears develop. Small buds appear that will soon become arms. Your baby's body begins to take on a C-shaped curvature.

              © Copyright Original Source





              Mayo Clinic or Oxmix…
              I deleted that post almost a soon as I put it up BTC. Mostly because I knew I hadn't expressed my point using the correct terminology. Not sure how you managed to get hold of it, It existed on the site about 1 or 2 minutes.
              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 Sam View Post
                "I'm over here discussing actual Newtonian physics and you ignorant dopes are trying to get me to talk about cats in boxes and 'spooky particles'. What nonsense."

                That's the problem with being blinkered:
                I'm a car now?

                you don't know the scope of what's being discussed or even the real foundation of your own argument. And if the narrow view is all you'll ever bother to see, you'll wind up thinking that's all there is to it.

                --Sam
                I do know the scope of what is being discussed. And the foundation. I know the science. I also know the philosophical ploys being utilized to throw attention away from the science. There is no "narrow area" to declaring EVERY HUMAN that ever existed as "not a human body" until they developed a brain. It's utter ignorance.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Sorry, but I responded to your since-deleted post with the science. It's solidly on my side.
                  No - it isn't BTC. I just didn't get the terminology correct for the point I was trying to make, primarily because to make my point I've got to be sure there is no possibility for you to twist what is being said.

                  The bottom line: You are conflating issues and ignoring realities and trying to pretend a complex problem can be summed up in some sort of simple all encompassing statement, and it can't.

                  Gestation is the process of making a new human being. During gestation the developing cells, blastocyst, fetus etc transitions from stage to stage. Each stage has different properties. Eventually, it reaches the point where it has what we call human consciousness. But it does not have that capacity or property when the process begins. And that is not a trivial distinction, it is a significant distinction.

                  And even the Scriptures recognize and codify that distinction.
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-24-2020, 12:05 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 Bill the Cat View Post
                    I'm a car now?



                    I do know the scope of what is being discussed. And the foundation. I know the science. I also know the philosophical ploys being utilized to throw attention away from the science. There is no "narrow area" to declaring EVERY HUMAN that ever existed as "not a human body" until they developed a brain. It's utter ignorance.
                    One element that clearly indicates you are not thinking clearly. You can not reflect back the arguments of the opinion you oppose without distorting it.

                    I did not say fully functional brain. Neither sam or myself is talking about the brain in terms of whether or not one can refer to the gestational phase as having a human body. These continued mistakes in understanding on your part, and your incapacity to recognize them even when they are pointed out to you, is a huge part of why these discussion can't stay rational or on track.
                    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 Sam View Post
                      Well, you can sit uncomfortably in your false allegation until the time comes to stand before the Throne, then.

                      This is, of course, why it's often futile to even join these discussions: any effort to even clarify the relevant terms and work through the relevant logic is anathema, as it might introduce a crack of doubt in the minds of people who clearly have not and will not put their argument to rigorous analytical test. There's no discussion, only defensive argument.

                      It's dogma, in other words, and you can't reason a man out of a position he was never reasoned into to begin with.

                      --Sam
                      OK Sam, you say you are Pro Life. So does Oxmixmudd. Yet the arguments you both have been putting forth are arguments for why a fetus isn't a human being and sound an awful lot like Pro Choice arguments.

                      Therefore, I challenge you both to switch arguments and tell us why abortion is wrong and why it should be eliminated.

                      Thanks.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        OK Sam, you say you are Pro Life. So does Oxmixmudd. Yet the arguments you both have been putting forth are arguments for why a fetus isn't a human being and sound an awful lot like Pro Choice arguments.

                        Therefore, I challenge you both to switch arguments and tell us why abortion is wrong and why it should be eliminated.

                        Thanks.
                        Apologize first. I'm not going to dignify a "challenge" from someone who deliberately accuses me of being something I am not and then, when corrected, responds with "if it walks like a duck".

                        --Sam
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Apologize first. I'm not going to dignify a "challenge" from someone who deliberately accuses me of being something I am not and then, when corrected, responds with "if it walks like a duck".

                          --Sam
                          I'm sorry, Sam.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            I'm sorry, Sam.
                            Thank you; I accept the apology.

                            So far, we've been talking about the what makes for a "person", how one can categorize and define properties of personhood, and what constitutes the philosophical foundation for a legal argument and justification. The scope of that discussion includes issues of morality but cannot rest on moral qualms.

                            In the realm of ethics and morality, though, we do not need such foundation to make determinations. We can, for example, hold that the virtue of temperance forbids excessive consumption of food and drink. We can hold that the virtue of fidelity forbids extra-marital affairs, physical or emotional. We can hold the virtue of charity forbids the practice of even petty usury. We can hold these ethical and moral positions while recognizing that drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, and usury are all constitutionally protected private decisions.

                            So, too, for the issue of abortion. Both Jim and I believe that even if a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a person, under a consistent and rational philosophical framework, it is a potential person. Not only is it a part of Creation, to be respected and preserved to the greatest reasonable extent, but it is a part of God's special creation -- a rare species able to mark the wonder of Creation itself and the God who sustains it. There are extenuating circumstances that can make an abortion ethically sound or neutral but abortions performed for selfish or unsound reasons are immoral.

                            The pro-life American who wishes abortion to be eliminated but agrees with the constitutional protections allowing pregnant persons access to abortion either A) must argue that a constitutional protection for an intimate private decision must be overturned or B) must argue in favor of mitigating or eliminating those factors that help drive pregnant persons to abortion. I've argued on this board that the same people who champion anti-abortion legislation turned around and attacked some of the best policy measures at our disposal to ensure fewer abortions: most notably the provision of no-cost LARC contraceptives through the ACA. It continues to show a deep contradiction in the pro-life movement -- if not an outright exposure of ulterior motive -- that measures which would dramatically reduce abortion in the USA are fought tooth-and-nail.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              Thank you; I accept the apology.

                              So far, we've been talking about the what makes for a "person", how one can categorize and define properties of personhood, and what constitutes the philosophical foundation for a legal argument and justification. The scope of that discussion includes issues of morality but cannot rest on moral qualms.

                              In the realm of ethics and morality, though, we do not need such foundation to make determinations. We can, for example, hold that the virtue of temperance forbids excessive consumption of food and drink. We can hold that the virtue of fidelity forbids extra-marital affairs, physical or emotional. We can hold the virtue of charity forbids the practice of even petty usury. We can hold these ethical and moral positions while recognizing that drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, and usury are all constitutionally protected private decisions.

                              So, too, for the issue of abortion. Both Jim and I believe that even if a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a person, under a consistent and rational philosophical framework, it is a potential person. Not only is it a part of Creation, to be respected and preserved to the greatest reasonable extent, but it is a part of God's special creation -- a rare species able to mark the wonder of Creation itself and the God who sustains it. There are extenuating circumstances that can make an abortion ethically sound or neutral but abortions performed for selfish or unsound reasons are immoral.

                              The pro-life American who wishes abortion to be eliminated but agrees with the constitutional protections allowing pregnant persons access to abortion either A) must argue that a constitutional protection for an intimate private decision must be overturned or B) must argue in favor of mitigating or eliminating those factors that help drive pregnant persons to abortion. I've argued on this board that the same people who champion anti-abortion legislation turned around and attacked some of the best policy measures at our disposal to ensure fewer abortions: most notably the provision of no-cost LARC contraceptives through the ACA. It continues to show a deep contradiction in the pro-life movement -- if not an outright exposure of ulterior motive -- that measures which would dramatically reduce abortion in the USA are fought tooth-and-nail.

                              --Sam
                              OK thanks, but basically are you saying it is wrong for those who believe it is wrong but OK for those who think it is OK and we should just try to convince them otherwise, while keeping it legal? I am a simple guy Sam, and those are a lot of words that seem to beat around the bush. I just want a clear and simple answer that you can go into detail later.

                              Why is abortion wrong? Not just for Christians but for anyone. OR do you believe it is only wrong for those of us who think it is wrong or who believe in a soul?

                              Should on-demand abortion be illegal? I am not talking about abortion to save the mother's life. But abortions that are purely for personal reasons and if there is no abortion but the mother and baby will be healthy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                OK thanks, but basically are you saying it is wrong for those who believe it is wrong but OK for those who think it is OK and we should just try to convince them otherwise, while keeping it legal? I am a simple guy Sam, and those are a lot of words that seem to beat around the bush. I just want a clear and simple answer that you can go into detail later.

                                Why is abortion wrong? Not just for Christians but for anyone. OR do you believe it is only wrong for those of us who think it is wrong or who believe in a soul?

                                Should on-demand abortion be illegal? I am not talking about abortion to save the mother's life. But abortions that are purely for personal reasons and if there is no abortion but the mother and baby will be healthy.
                                I ... think those questions were answered in my post.

                                Think about it this way: is a pro-fidelity Christian saying that adultery is wrong only for those who believe it is wrong or are they saying there's a moral and ethical standard that applies to everyone, regardless of what constitutional protections allow them to legally do? Is a pro-temperance Christian saying that drunkenness and gluttony are only wrong for people who believe in temperance or wrong for everyone, regardless of what the Constitution allows?

                                --Sam
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                313 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X