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 Bill the Cat View Post
    Jim was. He distinguished between a preborn that HAD and DID NOT HAVE a functioning brain.



    Sure. Let's go far fetched... If we decapitate someone, and can biologically alter their heart to keep itself beating without the medulla, and hook them up to a computer that can simulate communication, we can say they are a person without a brain. Want to go further? Let's say we figure out how to transplant brains, and I hire someone to kidnap Brad Pitt and transplant my brain into his body, since my brain is me, then he would have no subsequent right to the body, and I would have committed no crime because the body is mine.



    Yes. The blastocyst is a self-contained and self-directed member of our species. The brain is only an organ that is being kept alive artificially. If the power goes out, the brain tissue dies. The blastocyst doesn't.
    A fully functioning brain is not part of any of my points in that post. What I'm talking about there is the difference between no brain and a minimally functioning brain.
    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 Mountain Man View Post
      I said nothing about whether or not a fetus is of value to society. I said that it is inherently valuable in and of itself.
      "Inherent value" doesn't get you a foot closer to your conclusion here. Value doesn't confer a right, inherent or attributed by an external agent.


      --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
        "Inherent value" doesn't get you a foot closer to your conclusion here. Value doesn't confer a right, inherent or attributed by an external agent.


        --Sam
        I haven't followed this discussion closely, only skimmed it periodically. But value, in the context of this topic, usually is used in the sense of human dignity.

        Whether value is used synonymously for dignity, or the value is based in inherent dignity, the merit of the fetus is predicated on the assumption of worth, value, or dignity.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          "Inherent value" doesn't get you a foot closer to your conclusion here. Value doesn't confer a right, inherent or attributed by an external agent.

          --Sam
          If human life has no inherent value, then killing it becomes a morally neutral act.
          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
            You can track the progress of development, sure, but to pretend that it's discrete divisions rather than a continuous, unbroken whole is pure dogma.
            I don't know how you come up with these bizarre extrapolations that you invent out of my posts and then argue against, but it would help if you could take a little time to try to understand the points being made before your respond. It would waste a lot less time.

            I'm not talking about discrete division in the way you keep trying to force the topic to. It is a simple fact that a brain develops in a baby. There is a period of time when there is no brain, no nerve tissue of any kind. Then gradually, some cells differentiate into nerve cells at the right place and the right time and a very basic nervous system begins to develop. During any of these times, there is nothing that would equate to 'consciousness' in the forming child. Nothing that would make it a person, there is no mind there yet (which as we know is where the person is). There is however a later time when an actual brain begins to form and a time after that where a very basic kind of brain activity begins to develop. Now somewhere between that and a later stages where the majority of those 100 trillion neurons most of us have this child becomes the very basic root of what we call a 'person'. We can't know exactly where, but somewhere between that most basic brain and 6 to nine months the childs 'mind' becomes a reality.

            And while we can't know exactly when that happens, we know that it isn't there in those early stages before the brain even has a few thousand neurons, and we know that by the time the fetus has reached 6 months gestation it IS there. So the point is, it happens DURING gestation, and we know enough to draw safe boundaries around when it hasn't happened yet. In times we know there is no mind, this fetus is not yet a human being or human person. There is no mind there yet. And without a mind, we don't consider any human flesh to have rights. When a persons brain has died there is only the body left, an empty shell, and it doesn't have rights.
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2020, 07:24 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 Mountain Man View Post
              Assuming a normal pregnancy, a developing fetus does not merely have the potential to develop brain function, it inevitably will. But this has nothing to do with why we should protect it. A fetus is not inherently valuable because of what it could be but because of what it is.
              I'm not sure I believe that is a fair statement. What it is can't be separated from what it can become. A fetus that has failed to develop a brain will never become a human being. And because of what it can't become, it does not have value as a human being, while a normally developing fetus does have that value that is associated with the potential to become a human being.

              The issue is not value. A fetus has great value even from its first cellular division. But it is not yet a human being, and killing it is not yet murder. But it can, and normally will become a human being. And so neither is it simply 'two cells'. To me the distinction is not value, but when does the abortion become murder. When does the developing fetus become a separate human person and thus gain the right to be considered wholly separate from the mother as a person. I don't believe that is at conception. But I believe it is a good while before birth. Certainly by the third trimester, but probably by the end of the first or at the latest sometime in the early part of the second trimester is when that threshold is crossed. And after that point, every abortion that does not threaten the life of a mother murders a child. Before that transition, I don't believe an abortion can be fairly or legitimately classed as murder., even though in most cases it is wrong, because it is a developing child and will become a person if left to develop. That makes every abortion a travesty no matter when they are done, even necessary ones.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2020, 07:39 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
                I don't know how you come up with these bizarre extrapolations that you invent out of my posts and then argue against, but it would help if you could take a little time to try to understand the points being made before your respond. It would waste a lot less time.

                I'm not talking about discrete division in the way you keep trying to force the topic to. It is a simple fact that a brain develops in a baby. There is a period of time when there is no brain, no nerve tissue of any kind. Then gradually, some cells differentiate into nerve cells at the right place and the right time and a very basic nervous system begins to develop. During any of these times, there is nothing that would equate to 'consciousness' in the forming child. Nothing that would make it a person, there is no mind there yet (which as we know is where the person is). There is however a later time when an actual brain begins to form and a time after that where a very basic kind of brain activity begins to develop. Now somewhere between that and a later stages where the majority of those 100 trillion neurons most of us have this child becomes the very basic root of what we call a 'person'. We can't know exactly where, but somewhere between that most basic brain and 6 to nine months the childs 'mind' becomes a reality.

                And while we can't know exactly when that happens, we know that it isn't there in those early stages before the brain even has a few thousand neurons, and we know that by the time the fetus has reached 6 months gestation it IS there. So the point is, it happens DURING gestation, and we know enough to draw safe boundaries around when it hasn't happened yet. In times we know there is no mind, this fetus is not yet a human being or human person. There is no mind there yet. And without a mind, we don't consider any human flesh to have rights. When a persons brain has died there is only the body left, an empty shell, and it doesn't have rights.
                Imagine being a Christian who believes in the existence of the soul and it's continued existence after bodily death and God as an unembodied mind/spirit and still arguing that the existence of a nervous system and/or brain is a pre-requisite for granting a human being personhood.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  I don't know how you come up with these bizarre extrapolations that you invent out of my posts...
                  I'm not inventing anything. You're the one arguing that at some specific point along the unbroken continuum of a human life, a being suddenly acquires a value it did not have literally a moment before. That's dogma.
                  Last edited by Mountain Man; 01-23-2020, 08:38 AM.
                  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 Post
                    Imagine being a Christian who believes in the existence of the soul and it's continued existence after bodily death and God as an unembodied mind/spirit and still arguing that the existence of a nervous system and/or brain is a pre-requisite for granting a human being personhood.
                    Imagine Exodus defining that the accidental death of an unborn fetus as only requiring a fine from the offending person, as opposed to a life for a life if the mother also died.

                    Imagine that the Jewish Tradition, which forms the basis for Christian faith, does not consider the fetus a person until born, until its first breath.

                    Imagine that for millenia, independent of scientific knowledge of the critical nature of the brain to the mind and personality, Christians have debated when the soul actually becomes connected, infused, with/into the child, and that for over 1.5 millenia many notable church fathers believed it was not at conception, but later, at quickening.

                    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...1869-1.1449517
                    Source: above

                    The Catholic Church’s current position on abortion is 144 years old. In the 1869 document Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius IX declared the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Up to then Catholic teaching was that no homicide was involved if abortion took place before the foetus was infused with a soul, known as “ensoulment”.


                    Separate consciousness
                    This was believed to occur at “quickening”, when the mother detected the child move for the first time in her womb. It indicated a separate consciousness.

                    In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV determined it took place at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks. That is the current legal limit for abortion in the UK. It was Catholic Church teaching until 1869.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Imagine for a moment that it is possible some the the dogma around the issue of abortion is not entirely scriptural.

                    Imagine for a moment that there are times when science can inform our understanding of scripture.
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2020, 08:39 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 Mountain Man View Post
                      I'm not inventing anything. You're the one arguing that at some specific point along the unbroken continuum of a human life, a being suddenly acquires a value it did not have literally a moment before. That's dogma.
                      MM - I never said that. This is significant misunderstanding on your part.

                      spectrum.jpg

                      If I look at a spectrum. I can look on the right and see it is red. And I can look on the left and see it is violet. And I can look in the middle and see it is green.

                      But I cannot define the precise point where it moves from yellow to green, or orange to red, or green to blue. But i can safely define a frequency where it IS yellow. And I can safely define a frequency where it IS green. And blue, And red. And orange.

                      So, I am NOTsaying we can define a precise boundary to the minute, or the hour, or even the day where the baby has consciousness on one side and does not have consciousness on the other.

                      I am saying that just like we can define green, or blue, or red without saying the precise boundary where they change from those colors, we can define a point given the state of development where we can know it does NOT have consciousness. And we can define another point where where we know it DOES have consciousness.
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2020, 09:03 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
                        Imagine Exodus defining that the accidental death of an unborn fetus as only requiring a fine from the offending person, as opposed to a life for a life if the mother also died.
                        It's not at all clear that the passage is speaking of miscarriage. NET Bible translates the passage in this fashion:

                        Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:22-25 NET


                        22 “If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the one who hit her will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. 23 But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        And gives the following translation note for the phrase "born prematurely":

                        Source: NET Notes


                        tn This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word אָסוֹן (ʾason) is translated “serious damage.” The word was taken in Mekilta to mean “death.” U. Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die (Exodus, 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977): 193-201; W. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25, ” WTJ 41 (1978): 108-23; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25, ” VT 27 (1977): 352-60.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        https://netbible.org/bible/Exodus+21 (note 51)


                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Imagine that the Jewish Tradition, which forms the basis for Christian faith, does not consider the fetus a person until born, until its first breath.
                        Some parts of Jewish Tradition has influenced Christian faith. Something being part of "Jewish Tradition" is no reason for a Christian to uncritically accept it, especially seeing as "Jewish Tradition" would have you condemn Jesus as a messianic pretender and practiticioner of sorcery.

                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Imagine that for millenia, independent of scientific knowledge of the critical nature of the brain to the mind and personality, Christians have debated when the soul actually become connected, infused, with/into the child, when many notable church father believing it was not at conception, but later, at quickening.
                        Did any of them argue that the brain was essential to this process of ensoulment, or did they believe God would have been capable of ensouling the human embryo/fetus at any stage of the development process? Did God have to infuse the soul at a specific stage of development, or could He have chosen to do so at any point what so ever?

                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...1869-1.1449517
                        Source: above

                        The Catholic Church’s current position on abortion is 144 years old. In the 1869 document Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius IX declared the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Up to then Catholic teaching was that no homicide was involved if abortion took place before the foetus was infused with a soul, known as “ensoulment”.


                        Separate consciousness
                        This was believed to occur at “quickening”, when the mother detected the child move for the first time in her womb. It indicated a separate consciousness.

                        In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV determined it took place at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks. That is the current legal limit for abortion in the UK. It was Catholic Church teaching until 1869.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Did Pope Gregory XIV base his judgement on when ensoulment took place on whether the fetus had developed a brain or not?

                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Imagine for a moment that it is possible some the the dogma around the issue of abortion is not entirely scriptural.
                        Done. Nothing changed.

                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Imagine for a moment that there are times when science informs our understanding of scripture.
                        What you wrote above in post #1385 was not an instance of science informing our understanding of scripture. It was a just-so story about the necessity of the brain in the development of human consciousness, completely ignoring the spiritual aspect of existence, written in such a way that even the most hard-line materialist and proponent of scientism could have enthusiastically agreed with pretty much 100% of it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          MM - I never said that. This is significant misunderstanding on your part.

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]42298[/ATTACH]

                          If I look at a spectrum. I can look on the right and see it is red. And I can look on the left and see it is violet. And I can look in the middle and see it is green.

                          But I cannot define the precise point where it moves from yellow to green, or orange to red, or green to blue. But i can safely define a frequency where it IS yellow. And I can safely define a frequency where it IS green. And blue, And red. And orange.

                          So, I am NOTsaying we can define a precise boundary to the minute, or the hour, or even the day where the baby has consciousness on one side and does not have consciousness on the other.

                          I am saying that just like we can define green, or blue, or red without saying the precise boundary where they change from those colors, we can define a point given the state of development where we can know it does NOT have consciousness. And we can define another point where where we know it DOES have consciousness.
                          So your solution is to ballpark it and hope to God you're right. Terrific.
                          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
                            MM - I never said that. This is significant misunderstanding on your part.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]42298[/ATTACH]

                            If I look at a spectrum. I can look on the right and see it is red. And I can look on the left and see it is violet. And I can look in the middle and see it is green.

                            But I cannot define the precise point where it moves from yellow to green, or orange to red, or green to blue. But i can safely define a frequency where it IS yellow. And I can safely define a frequency where it IS green. And blue, And red. And orange.

                            So, I am NOTsaying we can define a precise boundary to the minute, or the hour, or even the day where the baby has consciousness on one side and does not have consciousness on the other.

                            I am saying that just like we can define green, or blue, or red without saying the precise boundary where they change from those colors, we can define a point given the state of development where we can know it does NOT have consciousness. And we can define another point where where we know it DOES have consciousness.
                            What if you’re wrong and it turns out that life does begin at conception. What than?
                            "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 lilpixieofterror View Post
                              What if you’re wrong and it turns out that life does begin at conception. What than?
                              Does that equation effect your view of the death penalty? Just wondering.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                So your solution is to ballpark it and hope to God you're right. Terrific.
                                Always the sarcasm. No, that is not it either MM. I know blue is blue, and I know the green is green. Likewise I can know when there is no consciousness, and I can know when there is. As long as the cutoff is before consciousness can arrive, there is no guesswork.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X