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 Mountain Man View Post
    No, that is not a scientific fact, it's a philosophical interpretation of a scientific fact.
    No MM. The early stages are not a human body. One cell does not a human body make. Nor 2, nor 4 and so on. Eventually, however, the developing fetus does take on all the characteristics of a human body, and well before birth. But 66% of abortions occur before the 8th week, before the fetus has a fully developed heart. 92% occur before the brain has developed and differentiated into an organ that can legitimately be compared to the brain at birth, or even 3 months before birth.

    It is rather a philosophical conclusion to call it a human body at these stages. Scientifically at say 4 or even 8 weeks, it is a developing fetus, human cells, but not yet a complete human body.

    To say that is not to support abortion on demand, and it is not to say that aborting the developing fetus is ok or moral, it is simply to acknowledge what is true.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-19-2020, 02:41 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 JimL View Post
      Your finger is not a human person.
      I think it important to note that a human person, a human body, and human life are all potentially different things. My finger is human life, but it is not a human body, nor is it a human person. A human body in a vegetative state is both human life and a human body, but it can be very hard to determine if it is still a human person. And a human person can indeed be missing a substantial portion of his human body.
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-19-2020, 02:49 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 JimLamebrain View Post
        Your finger is not a human person.
        It's also not a human organism.
        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 oxmixmudd View Post
          The early stages are not a human body. One cell does not a human body make. Nor 2, nor 4 and so on.
          Again, that's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          Scientifically at say 4 or even 8 weeks, it is a developing fetus, human cells, but not yet a complete human body.
          And now you're moving the goalposts.

          The bottom line for me is that abortion kills an innocent human life.
          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
            Again, that's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
            You have the science and the philosophy reversed MM.

            And now you're moving the goalposts.
            No - I'm not.

            The bottom line for me is that abortion kills an innocent human life.
            I don't think innocence applies to non-sentient forms of the fetus. For example - a blastocyst is neither innocent nor guilty. It has no moral capacity - yet it will - if left to develop. And that is intrinsically why it is wrong to kill it with no justification other than personal comfort.

            And so I agree with you that abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. But not because of 'innocence' in the earlier stages, but rather because of the intrinsic value of what it is and even more so of what it will become.

            I think it is a mistake to frame the argument against abortion as birth control in fundamentally flawed terms. The reason abortion on demand is wrong is because this is a developing human life distinct from the mother, and that should give it a critical protected place in our morality, in our psyche, in our culture. It will become a child, a human person, a child of God. And that makes it, even in it's simplest forms, more precious than any other non-human form of life. But it's not because it is already a human person. That is yet to come. If you frame the argument around the flawed assumption this is already a human person, then you have framed the argument around an idea anyone can show is false. A blastocyst is not yet a human person.
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-19-2020, 05:19 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
              If you frame the argument around the flawed assumption this is already a human person, then you have framed the argument around an idea anyone can show is false. A blastocyst is not yet a human person.
              I said nothing about it being a person. I said that it's human life. And it's not intrinsically valuable because of what it will become but because of what it is.
              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 oxmixmudd View Post
                You have the science and the philosophy reversed MM.
                I'm not sure that he has. As far as I know you're identifying 'human body' with the fetal stage. But that's not how the term is used within Science, so you're claiming a philosophical position: That there is some sort of essential difference between the blastocyst stage, and the fetal stage, without justification.

                I don't think innocence applies to non-sentient forms of the fetus.
                Innocense is simply the state of not having committed any moral evil. Since a fetus is a human, it has the potential for moral actions, but has not committed any yet, ergo it is innocent.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  This is a tangent that's been covered a million times so there's no need to get into it. But, briefly:
                  Gotta love the "no need to get into it, BUT...."

                  -- If we're going by biblical standards (or even much of modern Judaism), "life" equates to breath, which equates to birth. But that's not a necessary or even desirable standard so we should try to understand when an organism becomes a "being"

                  -- A "being" necessitates the function of sensation and processing, which necessitates higher-level brain function. In human embryos, that higher-level brain function -- the fundamental substrate of personhood -- begins developing at 24 weeks and is typically developed around 30 weeks.

                  -- Regardless of all of that, we're not bean counters.
                  After which, you get into numbers

                  "Number of lives" is meritorious as a metric only inasmuch as it relates to "amount of suffering". And since the suffering of a single child is infinitely greater than the suffering of a thousand 12-week embryos, an ethicist will have to consider the possibility that the greater evil is the suffering of the child. Certainly, we take this approach to contraception (as gametes are living cells, much like zygotes) and organ donation of brain-dead persons.
                  It's OK, Sam, you've answered my question, and I'm not the least bit surprised.

                  It is argued, therefore, that the purposeful oppression and suffering of children fleeing their dangerous homes to the protection of USA by separating them from their parents as a deterrent measure or forcing them to remain in Mexico while they await an asylum trial is a greater evil than abortions, at least those earlier than 24-30 weeks.

                  --Sam
                  And I reject your wacky notion that the PURPOSE of any immigration policy is the suffering of children. It may be "argued", but it's dumber than turtle poop, and just another liberal talking point!
                  Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-19-2020, 06:33 PM.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                    I believe you are an enemy of the cross.
                    Cool, the agnostic cry bully of Tweb thinks I'm enemy of the cross. I'll immediately dived into a deep dark depression.

                    At least I don't claim to believe while others claim to believe so only to promote an agenda that is contrary to what Jesus taught.
                    And what, pray tell, is the agenda I'm promoting that is contrary to what Jesus taught?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      I think it's notable that Cow Poke and others can advocate for some standard of Christianity where someone like Buttigieg (or myself) can't be called Christian....
                      I'm calling you out on this dishonest assault -- I have NEVER said you can't be a Christian, and I have never stated that Buttigieg is not. And that includes your smarmy wording that allows you to couch this cowardly accusation by hiding it behind "advocating for some standard".

                      Get out of the gutter, Sam.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        If the knee-jerk reaction...
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          No cp. I am saying that most of the time what is aborted can not be correctly classified a human body. My finger is human, but it is not a human body.
                          Your finger is not a distinct being with its own unique DNA, Jim - and you know that.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I'm calling you out on this dishonest assault -- I have NEVER said you can't be a Christian, and I have never stated that Buttigieg is not. And that includes your smarmy wording that allows you to couch this cowardly accusation by hiding it behind "advocating for some standard".

                            Get out of the gutter, Sam.
                            Now don't go cutting up sentences to make an accusation. I could have more clearly separated your contention, which you clipped, about being a legitimate commentator of Scripture from others' contention (made by more than one person on this board) that gay and LGBTQ-affirming Christians are not, in fact, Christian.

                            But it's pretty hard to imagine one without the other, either. If your response to a Christian discussing Scripture is "Why would I listen to them about anything Scriptural when they're married to another dude, I really don't think that leaves much room to maneuver.

                            --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 Cow Poke View Post
                              Gotta love the "no need to get into it, BUT...."


                              After which, you get into numbers


                              It's OK, Sam, you've answered my question, and I'm not the least bit surprised.


                              And I reject your wacky notion that the PURPOSE of any immigration policy is the suffering of children. It may be "argued", but it's dumber than turtle poop, and just another liberal talking point!

                              All of this needs a lot less cutting and a lot more thought put into a response before I can even begin to comment. It's reactionary and not considered.

                              --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
                                Now don't go cutting up sentences to make an accusation.
                                The quote is there for all to see, Sam -- That's why, unlike some of your supporters, I actually use the quote function.

                                I could have more clearly separated your contention,
                                You could have just stayed out of the gutter in the first place.

                                which you clipped, about being a legitimate commentator of Scripture from others' contention (made by more than one person on this board) that gay and LGBTQ-affirming Christians are not, in fact, Christian.
                                Perhaps you should have stuck with that.

                                But it's pretty hard to imagine one without the other, either. If your response to a Christian discussing Scripture is "Why would I listen to them about anything Scriptural when they're married to another dude, I really don't think that leaves much room to maneuver.

                                --Sam
                                Perhaps in your twisted little world, Sam, but in mine, somebody can legitimately be a "Christian" and be either ignorant, or screwed up in the head, or simply be wrong.....

                                I don't play this game like your colleague, Charles, stating somebody is "not a Christian" or "not a True Believer".

                                Still waiting for that apology, without all the runaround.

                                When you called me out on something, I immediately corrected, and didn't try to justify or rationalize.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 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
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X