Originally posted by oxmixmudd
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
Christianity Today Op Ed
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostPointing 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.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 PostYou 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.
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 / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmuddI have not ignored anything.
You can say this is a developing human body from day one.
But you can't claim it IS a human body until the body parts form.
Likewise, the human person is 100% dependent upon the existence of the brain itself.
Without a brain, there is no human person their.
And it is the human person that defines if killing the body is murder or not.
So if the discussion is about when there is a human person, then you have to talk about when the brain forms.
If there is a discussion about is there a human body, then you must wait for some subset of the body parts to form.
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.
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.
Science doesn't even talk about a human body until later in the gestation cycle.
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"
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'.
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.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 PostBill - you've been all over the map. And no, you don't have science on your side on this.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 PostYes 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?
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:
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:
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:
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.
--SamThat'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 PostSorry, but I responded to your since-deleted post with the science. It's solidly on my side.
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 PostI'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.
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 PostWell, 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
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 PostOK 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.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI'm sorry, Sam.
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 / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThank 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
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 PostOK 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.
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 / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:15 AM
|
20 responses
139 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 10:03 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:25 AM
|
7 responses
40 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 09:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:23 AM
|
4 responses
42 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:52 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 05-26-2024, 07:29 PM
|
55 responses
299 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 09:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-26-2024, 06:18 PM
|
14 responses
67 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:08 AM
|
Comment