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
-
"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat's another big problem with attempts to dogmatically interpret scripture based on the information that would have been available to people at the time. I wonder, too, if punishing only with a fine for causing a miscarriage of an unformed child -- which is to say something that was not readily identifiabe as human -- was to allow for the possibility that the women wasn't actually pregnant, but if it was obviously a developing child then it was treated as murder.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-22-2020, 10:15 AM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe problem I see with treating babies at different stages of development as their lives being more or less valuable, is that it could be carried on to after they are born. After all, a 5 year old is more developed than a newborn, and a 12 year old is more developed than a 5 y.o. - And then you have people with low IQ's or dementia. Are they less valuable than say, a genius? People aren't valuable because of their brain development, they are valuable because they are human beings. Or for us Christians, because they are made in the image of God and have souls.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 lilpixieofterror View PostThe problem is there is no scientific understanding of what the soul is or how to measure it. Is it something dependent on brainwaves (which have been observed at 6 weeks) or is it linked to signs of life? Nobody can say for sure because the Bible wasn’t written to be a scientific textbook. I’d say, it is better to error on the side of caution.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 PostYou are right - and as a christian that is a valid caution to fellow Christian's. But secular law can't incorporate a belief about a soul. And as long as the abortion debate is framed as a debate about supernatural beliefs then we are forever arcane impasse with the constitution which forbids the imposition of a specific religious belief on the entire population. However, we can understand from a secular position that a human being, by all definitions, is present when a certain minimum level of brain activity is present. And we can also recognize that even believing in a soul, sincere and real Christians have arrived at different conclusions about when a soul appears into a fetus. With that in mind, it seems to me there is ample reason to rally behind the legally and scientifically justifiable solution that defines a human being as present in a body when there is this basic level of higher brain function. Then the only people fighting to justify mid and late term abortions are doing so from an unscientific, emotional platform that says a women has the right to kill what is legally and scientifically another human being for convenience. And I dont think that is an argument that can win in the long run.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-22-2020, 10:59 AM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostExactly. Picking out any one point along the continuum of a human life and saying, "Before this time, it is not a human being; after this time, it is," is wholly arbitrary. Our lives do not happen in stages. It is a continuous, unbroken process from conception to death. It's a scientific fact.
On the other hand, if the doctor carves up a 6 months gestation fetus to abort it, that child most certainly does 'know' that it is being cut to pieces. And even thinking about that reality it is difficult to fathom how a doctor can proceed.
And so there is a massive difference between say a bastocyst and a 6 months gestation fetus. And somewhere in-between the two, a conscious being is formed.
And so while one can't draw a precise line that defines when that conscious presence of this child's being begins - one can draw solid lines in terms of when it is not. It most certainly is NOT present anytime before nerve cells begin to form, for example. And we can probably do better than that, and in fact, we already have. We have clear definitions that define when the person has passed. When the body is still alive, but they are gone. And we measure that in terms of brain activity. A similar test can be made on the front end. If certain basic brain activity has not yet appeared, the entity that will be the child is not yet there.
Religiously, even there we don't know when the soul or personality arrives in a spiritual sense. We don't even have any sort of good idea what element would be called the soul that is not intricately linked to the brain and nervous system. We believe there is more there than that, but we don't really know. So in terms of making a law that is not based on a religious point of view, it seems the idea of brain activity is about the best we can ever hope to get, unless we can literally find a way to detect the immortal soul.
Now - am I saying this to say abortion before said time is ok? No. There is intrinsic value in the forming child that makes any attempt to destroy it for convenience wrong. But I am saying that 'it is wrong to abort it' and 'is is murder to abort it' are two different things, and in terms of defining abortion as murder, you have to wait until some reasonable expectation there is a human person there to be murdered.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2020, 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 oxmixmudd View PostIt really isn't that way MM. You are using an invalid measure - you are acting as if no useful division can be made without being able to define that division very precisely. But precision of that sort is not necessary. Prior to the creation of a nervous system and a brain, there is no awareness of any sort in the fetus. It is a developing Human being, but if it is destroyed, there is yet no detectable element that has a capacity to perceive or react in the fetus.
On the other hand, if the doctor carves up a 6 months gestation fetus to abort it, that child most certainly does 'know' that it is being cut to pieces. And even thinking about that reality it is difficult to fathom how a doctor can proceed.
And so there is a massive difference between say a bastocyst and a 6 months gestation fetus. And somewhere in-between the two, a conscious being is formed.
And so while one can't draw a precise line that defines when that conscious presence of this child's being begins - one can draw solid lines in terms of when it is not. It most certainly is NOT present anytime before nerve cells begin to form, for example. And we can probably do better than that, and in fact, we already have. We have clear definitions that define when the person has passed. When the body is still alive, but they are gone. And we measure that in terms of brain activity. A similar test can be made on the front end. If certain basic brain activity has not yet appeared, the entity that will be the child is not yet there.
Religiously, even there we don't know when the soul or personality arrives in a spiritual sense. We don't even have any sort of good idea what element would be called the soul that is not intricately linked to the brain and nervous system. We believe there is more there than that, but we don't really know. So in terms of making a law that is not based on a religious point of view, it seems the idea of brain activity is about the best we can ever hope to get, unless we can literally find a way to detect the immortal soul.
Now - am I saying this to say abortion before said time is ok? No. There is intrinsic value in the forming child that makes any attempt to destroy it for convenience wrong. But I am saying that 'it is wrong to abort it' and 'is is murder to abort it' are two different things, and in terms of defining abortion as murder, you have to wait until some reasonable expectation there is a human person there to be murdered."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt really isn't that way MM. You are using an invalid measure - you are acting as if no useful division can be made without being able to define that division very precisely. But precision of that sort is not necessary. Prior to the creation of a nervous system and a brain, there is no awareness of any sort in the fetus. It is a developing Human being, but if it is destroyed, there is yet no detectable element that has a capacity to perceive or react in the fetus.
On the other hand, if the doctor carves up a 6 months gestation fetus to abort it, that child most certainly does 'know' that it is being cut to pieces. And even thinking about that reality it is difficult to fathom how a doctor can proceed.
And so there is a massive difference between say a bastocyst and a 6 months gestation fetus. And somewhere in-between the two, a conscious being is formed.
And so while one can't draw a precise line that defines when that conscious presence of this child's being begins - one can draw solid lines in terms of when it is not. It most certainly is NOT present anytime before nerve cells begin to form, for example. And we can probably do better than that, and in fact, we already have. We have clear definitions that define when the person has passed. When the body is still alive, but they are gone. And we measure that in terms of brain activity. A similar test can be made on the front end. If certain basic brain activity has not yet appeared, the entity that will be the child is not yet there.
Religiously, even there we don't know when the soul or personality arrives in a spiritual sense. We don't even have any sort of good idea what element would be called the soul that is not intricately linked to the brain and nervous system. We believe there is more there than that, but we don't really know. So in terms of making a law that is not based on a religious point of view, it seems the idea of brain activity is about the best we can ever hope to get, unless we can literally find a way to detect the immortal soul.
Now - am I saying this to say abortion before said time is ok? No. There is intrinsic value in the forming child that makes any attempt to destroy it for convenience wrong. But I am saying that 'it is wrong to abort it' and 'is is murder to abort it' are two different things, and in terms of defining abortion as murder, you have to wait until some reasonable expectation there is a human person there to be murdered.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
-
So if you could put a baby to sleep so it would be unaware that you were going to kill it and it couldn't feel any pain, then infanticide would be OK? If not, why not?
What about anesthetizing a 7 month old fetus before aborting it?
Comment
-
Brain development is merely one of several interrelated biological processes. Decapitation does not mean that the head is still a human person because it has a fully developed brain. Human persons are human persons at the moment of conception.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 Sparko View PostSo if you could put a baby to sleep so it would be unaware that you were going to kill it and it couldn't feel any pain, then infanticide would be OK? If not, why not?
What about anesthetizing a 7 month old fetus before aborting it?
The argument is not merely that embryos and fetuses, up to a certain date of gestation, do not suffer. It's that they lack the neurological capacity for suffering and, indeed, sensation processing. That relates to the question of what is a "person" and at what point do human organisms gain and lose the rights afforded to all persons?
We understand, for instance, that brain-dead patients do not have the rights afforded to persons -- at least not all of them. We understand that people who die do so slowly -- brain-death often precedes the death of other organs. We recognize, for the most part, that the life and health of a grown pregnant woman supersedes whatever rights are afforded to embryos and fetuses.
So the question isn't whether an organism suffers when talking about its rights. The question involves (but is not limited to) whether an organism has sufficient neurological capacity for suffering.
--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 Bill the Cat View PostBrain development is merely one of several interrelated biological processes. Decapitation does not mean that the head is still a human person because it has a fully developed brain. Human persons are human persons at the moment of conception.
--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 PostIf you could decapitate a person and keep her head and brain alive (we're maybe 50-150 years out), which would be the "person" with rights? Her head or her separated body?
--Sam"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThis would be an ethical question but it's the wrong category of question.
The argument is not merely that embryos and fetuses, up to a certain date of gestation, do not suffer. It's that they lack the neurological capacity for suffering and, indeed, sensation processing. That relates to the question of what is a "person" and at what point do human organisms gain and lose the rights afforded to all persons?
We understand, for instance, that brain-dead patients do not have the rights afforded to persons -- at least not all of them. We understand that people who die do so slowly -- brain-death often precedes the death of other organs. We recognize, for the most part, that the life and health of a grown pregnant woman supersedes whatever rights are afforded to embryos and fetuses.
So the question isn't whether an organism suffers when talking about its rights. The question involves (but is not limited to) whether an organism has sufficient neurological capacity for suffering.
--Sam
So that leaves "ability to suffer" - since when is that a criteria for killing someone? If you anesthetize them first, then it is OK?
And "person" is a legal term. It has no meaning in biology. Biologically a fetus is just as much a human organism as a 1 month old baby. It is perfectly normal for it to not have a brain yet. YET.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIf you could decapitate a person and keep her head and brain alive (we're maybe 50-150 years out), which would be the "person" with rights? Her head or her separated body?
--Sam
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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
6 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
231 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
32 responses
176 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
307 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment