Topic: Abortion 2 (Read 21296 times)

Trent · « **Reply #80 on:** August 15, 2008, 02:14:52 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on August 10, 2008, 03:52:37 PM

Because if you think that your opinion determines moral standards you basicly are reaffirming my previous statement of your arrogantly believing the universe revolves around your opinion.

The only thing my opinion determines is my opinion. It's a collection of society's opinions which I believe determines moral standards. Get it right.

I don't have time to reply further, and even if I did, my desire to do so is waning. I don't see any reason to continue this--I don't actually care if you understand or agree; I was debating because that's what you do on a debate forum. So farewell for now. And no, I'm not an idiot. You just can't get around your all-powerful hatred of popular opinion.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #81 on:** August 15, 2008, 12:26:39 PM »

Danny!

Long time no talk, man. How was the wedding? or, if it has yet to happen, how are the plans coming along. If you walked into the church/facility/wherever the day before and it wasn't raining on the podium where the pastor/priest/whatever is supposed to stand, then you're one up on me.

A while back you said something like "the argument that errs on the side of caution is something I'm sympathetic to" or something like that. Care you elaborate on that further.

Drop me a line sometime and let me know how you're doing.
Sasquatch

End Bringer · « **Reply #82 on:** August 15, 2008, 02:16:59 PM »

Quote from: Trent on August 15, 2008, 02:14:52 AM

Quote from: End Bringer on August 10, 2008, 03:52:37 PM
Because if you think that your opinion determines moral standards you basicly are reaffirming my previous statement of your arrogantly believing the universe revolves around your opinion.

The only thing my opinion determines is my opinion. It's a collection of society's opinions which I believe determines moral standards. Get it right.

And you are part of that collection. Following your reasoning it's just society's opinion that determines society's opinions. An obvious redundancy. And as I said you are basicly reaffirming that what Nazi Germany did was completely fine.

Quote

I don't have time to reply further, and even if I did, my desire to do so is waning. I don't see any reason to continue this--I don't actually care if you understand or agree; I was debating because that's what you do on a debate forum. So farewell for now. And no, I'm not an idiot. You just can't get around your all-powerful hatred of popular opinion.

Difference between hatred and contempt. I'd call on you to prove your assertion as I did with your other assertion in this thread, but you'll back out of it now as you did then.

What's interesting is that I have just recieved a job at a Wal-mart distribution center and had to review a policy that directly relates to your "If they can that's all the authority they need." belief. Issues such as working off the clock or recieving gratuitaries are very serious to the company. What struck me was that we are informed that if a manager does as ask us to work when we are not clocked in on the job, we are to report him. He is commiting an illegal and unethical act for the sole reason that he has no authority to do so. By your view the fact that a manager can ask is all the authority one needs. In reality you'd be fired for such an attitude.

Just an obseveration, on how your view may all play out in your head, but compared to life one obviously sees it doesn't work that way.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #83 on:** August 17, 2008, 02:01:39 PM »

Joe,

Good to hear from you big man. It has indeed been a while. In the spirit of seizing the unexpected moment, i took the opportunity to read through your blog. i laughed out-loud three times, and was dumbstruck with awe that you got a personal message from the mighty GK. i used to have episodes of Lake Wobegone Days on audio cassette (i realise that this dates me terribly. You're right - thirty is a little scary. i wish i was still in my mid-twenties like you).

i'll PM you or something about the wedding. It was good tho.

A while back you said something like "the argument that errs on the side of caution is something I'm sympathetic to" or something like that. Care you elaborate on that further.

Briefly - i am pro-life, in the literal not-distorted-for-political-reasons sense of the term, in that i think that life (specifically human life) is a good thing and i am all for it. It's interesting that one can be 'Pro-life' in the sense that most people understand the term, while also (without any obvious internal dissonance) being pro-death penalty, pro-unprovoked military interventions, pro-any number of other things which might with equal honesty be called 'Anti-life',... but i digress. i think that human life is important and therefore i am in favour of preserving it where possible (and where the owner wishes it to be preserved), but i am personally unsure at exactly what point on the developmental continuum it is reasonable to apply the label of humanity. At one end of the spectrum of views on this subject we have the likes of Peter Singer, who believes that adult chimps should be given preferential treatment over babies and disabled adults, since they have a superior level of cognition and awareness; and then at the other end of the spectrum, we have people like EB, who insist that humanity begins at conception. i can't see any merit in EB's position, since apart from anything else i know that an embryo will often split into two after the point of conception, leaving him in the same boat with Astrologers in having to justify why identical twins are not essentially the same person. Likewise i cannot fully support the Singer position that personhood only comes with the development of consciousness. i think there's an argument to be made for Potential as a factor in determining personhood, but it's hard to know how to apply it.

What makes it more complicated is that the abortion issue is usually split along feminist/fundamentalist lines, and in that particular stand-off i am firmly in the feminist camp. It's odd, incidentally, that 100 years ago the emerging feminist movement was primarily anti-abortion, because it was seen as a tool of male domination and control. Interesting how things change. Anyway, despite my political affiliations, i believe that a blanket pro-abortion position (i.e. making abortion the woman's choice at any stage of gestation) is irresponsible, because late in development i think that foetuses may well qualify for inclusion in the nebulous category of 'Human'. Ideally, i would like barrier contraception to be so universally available that there was no such thing as an 'unwanted pregnancy' except in cases of rape, where the 'morning-after pill' method could be used. Unfortunately the enemies of abortion also feel it necessary to set themselves against these simple solutions (as well as usually opposing the education necessary for young people to know that these options are available), leaving us in our current quandry.

In the absence of the full range of 'family-planning' options becoming available to every man and (primarily) woman overnight, i am in favour of as few abortions as possible beyond the point where the issue of personhood starts to be realistically raised. If there were no abortions after the first trimester, i'd be happy (not because i think there are issues of personhood at this stage, but because it errs on the side of caution), but i don't think the way to achieve that is by legislating against the last resort while simultaneously reducing access to the other available options. As if most women want to have a late stage abortion! Sheesh!

That wasn't quite as brief as i intended.

Take care buddy,
Dan

End Bringer · « **Reply #84 on:** August 17, 2008, 08:22:05 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on August 17, 2008, 02:01:39 PM

i think that human life is important and therefore i am in favour of preserving it where possible (and where the owner wishes it to be preserved), but i am personally unsure at exactly what point on the developmental continuum it is reasonable to apply the label of humanity.

I'm genuinely curious on how you can reconcile this at all with atheism, that holds that human life is essentially accidental cosmic junk that's no more important or significant than bacteria.

Copernicus · « **Reply #85 on:** August 18, 2008, 12:02:10 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on August 17, 2008, 08:22:05 PM

I'm genuinely curious on how you can reconcile this at all with atheism, that holds that human life is essentially accidental cosmic junk that's no more important or significant than bacteria.

Atheism does not "hold" this position any more than theism accepts or rejects it. Atheism is just the rejection of the belief that gods exist. Nothing more. An evolutionist might hold that humans are evolved to survive and perpetuate their own species, just like any other living organism. To the extent that we are able, we shape our own destiny. If you choose to serve an idealized version of yourself, you are no different from those who serve other false gods. You do so, because you think it supports your drive to survive. It is no accident that your religion guarantees you salvation and life after death.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #86 on:** August 18, 2008, 05:54:01 AM »

Danny:

Thanks for reading my blog. That makes you one of a vast multitude (roughly 3 or so) to do such a thing in the last month. Congratulations! Sure, the audio cassette thing might date you, but listening to a podcast of it just seems

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #87 on:** August 18, 2008, 05:56:57 AM »

Cop

Quote

It is no accident that your religion guarantees you salvation and life after death.

It'd be awful masochistic to believe otherwise, wouldn't it? :)

joe

Dannyboy · « **Reply #88 on:** August 18, 2008, 10:19:58 AM »

Hey Joe,

Thank you for injecting some courteous and thoughtful good humour into this (previously) acrimonious debate. It's good to take a step back from the screaming match and remember that the 'opposition' aren't all authoritarian ego-trippers - probably most of them aren't, even if some of them do seem compelled to act that way.

We just have one small disagreement that results in one of us believing abortion is okay (you) and the other believing it isn't (me).

i believe it is probably 'okay' in the first trimester, after that i am deeply uneasy about it because of the aforementioned erring on the side of caution.

I'd be a larger, hairier version of Gertrude Stein on the issue. How's that mental image work for ya?

Well, i don't really know what Gertrude Stein looks like, but i can easily imagine you as a larger, hairier version of almost anybody (except King Kong, obviously - he'd be a larger, hairier version of you).

You say human life is important. I say its sacred. I think we're saying pretty much the same thing.

Maybe not. Or maybe we are saying essentially the same thing from within our respective frames of reference. i wouldn't use the word 'sacred' to describe anything, because i don

Dannyboy · « **Reply #89 on:** August 18, 2008, 02:39:24 PM »

Further thoughts:

The clash (in my mind) between valuing a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body, and a possibly human embryo's right to life would be simpler if i was a woman. Then i would at least be able to decide the morality of having an abortion in my case. i would be (almost) in the position of the guy in the tent wondering whether the noise outside is a hungry bear or his drinking buddy. However, i am isolated from the coal-face of such decision-making by my gender. To condemn abortion as immoral on the basis of the uncertainties we have discussed, i would essentially be saying "You women must endure the slow distortion of your bodies in the service of an entity who may have a genuine right to life which overrides your right to decline this experience". Making a sacrifice (such as taking the risk of getting eaten, in your analogy) because of an uncertainty is hardly a moral act if the sacrifice is not your own, but someone elses.

And:

Quote

It is no accident that your religion guarantees you salvation and life after death.

It'd be awful masochistic to believe otherwise, wouldn't it? :)

Only if Cop and i are masochists. i dont think that you can entirely choose what you believe, but it probably isn't an accident that (like pets) Gods tend to resemble their owners - the god of middle-class rural British methodism (who i grew up with) would not recognise the god of evangelistic American Neo-Conservatism. We're taught that God made Man in his own image, when it's almost precisely the other way around.

PS - did i tell you about the time i was nearly eaten by a bear?

End Bringer · « **Reply #90 on:** August 18, 2008, 03:18:35 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 18, 2008, 12:02:10 AM

Atheism does not "hold" this position any more than theism accepts or rejects it. Atheism is just the rejection of the belief that gods exist. Nothing more. An evolutionist might hold that humans are evolved to survive and perpetuate their own species, just like any other living organism.

Oh please. As DB is so fond of pointing out, there are always certain amount of "belief packages" (is that the correct phrase?) when it comes to a religion. If you believe that no God exists and we are all just made out of random events then my previous statement is the obvious conclusion. Your continued denial that "rejecting the belief that God exists" comes with a fair amount implicit baggage with it shows an inherent irrationality Cop. Was it you or DB who said they didn't care for atheist's weaseling out of burden of proof?

Quote

An evolutionist might hold that humans are evolved to survive and perpetuate their own species, just like any other living organism. To the extent that we are able, we shape our own destiny. If you choose to serve an idealized version of yourself, you are no different from those who serve other false gods. You do so, because you think it supports your drive to survive. It is no accident that your religion guarantees you salvation and life after death.

I know, that's why I've taken your "Your an atheist too" line, and have come to realise that you are in fact a theist in a certain sense Cop. The god you worship being yourself. Your criticism not really applying to Christianity as God as taught in the bible is anything but an idealized version of ourselves.

Though the obvious problem with this is that we see animals having the same drive to survive, yet there is an obvious lack of temple building with them. One then wonders why this "drive to survive" needs to be supported in the first place if evolution is true. Seems an inherent flaw of reasoning that a biological process needs theological help to accomplish what is it's primary "goal" in the first place. Of course this is just more typical atheist decrying other religions in general and Christianity in particular being anything but the truth, as with your claims of "being a drive to surivive" there include "oppium for the masses", "tool of governments to control citizens", "interpretations of natural events by primitive man", blah blah blah. There is an obvious lack of confidence in atheists if they have to clearly look for excuses to justify themselves.

Quote

EB contends that once a thing is created it cannot and does not change its essential nature until it is destroyed. A human being is therefore a human being from the moment of conception right through to death (or just brain death, confusingly). What i am saying is, early in gestation a single embryo will sometimes split in half and develop into two individual foetuses. If we consider this embryo to be just as human as you or i, then this is a very difficult process to explain. Imagine me splitting in half, not in a stage-magician-sawing-through-my-waist kind of way, but in a one-person-becoming-two-people (both identical to the first) kind of way. What has become of my soul (if we believe in a soul)? What has become of my identity (if we dont)?

I didn't comment on this, but if you are going to continue limping on with your pot shots as you've once again tellingly abandoned your failing line of arguement so be it. One can easily point out that twinning is simply a form of asexual repruduction of the original embryo. Certainly not a difficult process to explain and perfectly compatable with the law of identity. Fact is twins, triplets, and octuplets are much harder to come to terms with by your standards DB, than they are for mine. As they naturally all have the same "characteristics" you must view each obvious individual as one identity not only in the womb but threw out the entirety of their lives. Obviously a ridiculous notion, that's telling of an obviously ridiculous standard.

But then I think not putting much stock in what you personally think is justified by the simple fact that you think identifying a human is so "nebulous", when kids are generally able to distinguash between humans, dogs, cats, and birds by at least grade shool. As I said, the only way the issue of abortion can be complicated, is by those who support it attempt to make it complicated.

Copernicus · « **Reply #91 on:** August 18, 2008, 04:22:11 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on August 18, 2008, 03:18:35 PM

Oh please. As DB is so fond of pointing out, there are always certain amount of "belief packages" (is that the correct phrase?) when it comes to a religion. If you believe that no God exists and we are all just made out of random events then my previous statement is the obvious conclusion. Your continued denial that "rejecting the belief that God exists" comes with a fair amount implicit baggage with it shows an inherent irrationality Cop. Was it you or DB who said they didn't care for atheist's weaseling out of burden of proof?

Once again, you blow right past the point in your effort to paint all atheists with the same broad brush. Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not God. It carries no inherent doctrines of morality or evolution. In just the same way, theism is no particular religion. It is just the belief that a god or gods do exist. There is no particular doctrine associated with it. The problem is that you dogmatically insist that atheism is a religious belief, whereas it is really just a belief about gods, i.e. that they are imaginary beings invented by human minds.

Quote

...that's why I've taken your "Your an atheist too" line, and have come to realise that you are in fact a theist in a certain sense Cop. The god you worship being yourself. Your criticism not really applying to Christianity as God as taught in the bible is anything but an idealized version of ourselves.

Atheism is not just about the God in the Bible. It is about gods in general, of which your God is just one instance. It is sheer nonsense to pretend that the God of the Bible is not conceived of as humanlike, as there are too many passages in it that prove otherwise. However, there are versions of belief that abstract away from humans, especially when Christians are anxious to support the claim that their God is not tainted by anthropomorphism. I understand your need to get away from that baggage, but it really follows you around and pops up whenever you pull out your Bible.

It is a common ploy of religious dogmatists such as yourself to try to claim that atheism is a religion, even though it is no more a religion than theism is. The ridiculous claim that atheists see themselves as God is particularly ironic when it issues forth from someone who constantly holds himself out as a spokesperson for the thoughts, intentions, and desires of a deity. It appears to me that you do not speak for your God. Your God speaks for you, because he can only speak to other human beings through you. Atheists can certainly be as self-centered and arrogant as any human being, even a Christian, but few seem to think themselves in possession of supernatural powers. If an atheist worships himself, he does not tend to confuse himself with God--at least, not nearly as much as Christians seem to when they wax enthusiastic about God's agenda for the human race.

Quote

Though the obvious problem with this is that we see animals having the same drive to survive, yet there is an obvious lack of temple building with them. One then wonders why this "drive to survive" needs to be supported in the first place if evolution is true. Seems an inherent flaw of reasoning that a biological process needs theological help to accomplish what is it's primary "goal" in the first place...

Indeed, the question of why religion exists at all is a very interesting one, and a number of folks have written very interesting works on that subject. My favorite is Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He goes into great detail as to how and why religion is so ubiquitous in human society, given that it is so burdensome and costly to maintain it. He does not confine his research to Christianity, but to the general phenomenon of religion. Nor does he condemn religion as a phenomenon. His view of the subject is far more complex than you might imagine.

Quote

...Of course this is just more typical atheist decrying other religions in general and Christianity in particular being anything but the truth, as with your claims of "being a drive to surivive" there include "oppium for the masses", "tool of governments to control citizens", "interpretations of natural events by primitive man", blah blah blah. There is an obvious lack of confidence in atheists if they have to clearly look for excuses to justify themselves.

There goes your broad brush again. Not every atheist feels the need to condemn religion, but your purpose here seems to be to stir up hatred towards those who would question belief in gods. If you felt truly confident and comfortable in your religious beliefs, you wouldn't feel the need to do this so often.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #92 on:** August 18, 2008, 04:23:40 PM »

Quote

Only if Cop and i are masochists. i dont think that you can entirely choose what you believe, but it probably isn't an accident that (like pets) Gods tend to resemble their owners - the god of middle-class rural British methodism (who i grew up with) would not recognise the god of evangelistic American Neo-Conservatism. We're taught that God made Man in his own image, when it's almost precisely the other way around.

Ah, interesting. So, it makes sense then that Christians believe in a God that is perfectly knowledgeable and powerful, loving and just. Pretty much every person I've met is perfect in every way, so it makes sense to invent a deity that is the ultimate fulfillment of all perceived virtues, isn't it? I suppose by this reasoning then I must conclude that the Roman, Greek, and Norse pantheons (etc) are probably actually not created by human invention. Humans, being perfect of course, are not subject to the tantrums and jealousies and weird soap opera dramatics that mark such systems. It follows, I reckon that Zeus (for example) has a higher claim to reality than the Christian God, since Zeus with all his frailities has no comparison to humans, who, we have just agreed, are uniformly perfect in every way.

Similarly, the Christian concept of grace, which urges that there is absolutely nothing that you can do to save yourself except fall on God's mercy is similarly a human construct. For bribery and extremism (legalism) are foreign to the human race. Humans are so filled with unconditional love it makes sense, then, that we would find a God patterned in the same vein. So, the Christian God probably isn't real. However, when we turn our attention to another system, say, the Muslim system or the Jehovah Witness system, where strict guidelines are established and dutifully performed- or else- we must now conclude that these are probably closer to divine realities since the manipulative concepts of God entrenched in them have no comparison to actual human conduct.

No other instance of such weird reverse-imaging can be provided than the doctrine of the Trinity: "The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Spirit incomprehensible." If we are to suppose then that this doctrine, ridiculed by so many as incoherent, actually has its roots in human imagination, I suppose it can't be said anymore that it is in fact incoherent. It is, in fact, just the kind of thing that humans are likely to invent since day in and day out they interact with incomprehensible trinities.

All in all, a stellar argument!

I don't suppose that it works the other way, does it? Ie, if something in a particular religion seems practically foreign to the human race and unlikely to be invented by the human race, that particular religion doesn't gain any credibility, does it? If not, then it strikes me the argument is just today's bludgeon of choice: any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with.

Copernicus · « **Reply #93 on:** August 18, 2008, 05:38:34 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 18, 2008, 04:23:40 PM

Quote from: Dannyboy
Only if Cop and i are masochists. i dont think that you can entirely choose what you believe, but it probably isn't an accident that (like pets) Gods tend to resemble their owners - the god of middle-class rural British methodism (who i grew up with) would not recognise the god of evangelistic American Neo-Conservatism. We're taught that God made Man in his own image, when it's almost precisely the other way around.

Ah, interesting. So, it makes sense then that Christians believe in a God that is perfectly knowledgeable and powerful, loving and just...

And there you go--off and running with a straw man distortion of what Danny said. He said that gods tend to resemble their owners, not that their owners possess godlike properties. It would be absurd to claim omnimax qualities of individual believers, but the straw man allows you to reduce Danny's point to just that absurdity. What he is saying is pretty obvious. People tend to impute their own attitudes and feelings to their individual versions of God. An angry, vengeful person will tend to think of God as somewhat of a cranky being. A kind, generous person will not usually think of God as full of anger and vengeful thoughts.

But those are implementation details. All Christians will share certain descriptions of gods. The Muslim who thinks that you ought to be killed for having insulted him, still describes God as "all-merciful". The deranged anti-abortionist who shoots an abortionist doctor will still insist that God commands us not to murder. People of religious faith who might appear to go against the letter of scripture to most believers have perfectly rational explanations (in their minds) of how to reconcile their deeds with their scripture.

End Bringer · « **Reply #94 on:** August 18, 2008, 05:56:05 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 18, 2008, 04:22:11 PM

Once again, you blow right past the point in your effort to paint all atheists with the same broad brush. Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not God. It carries no inherent doctrines of morality or evolution. In just the same way, theism is no particular religion. It is just the belief that a god or gods do exist. There is no particular doctrine associated with it. The problem is that you dogmatically insist that atheism is a religious belief, whereas it is really just a belief about gods, i.e. that they are imaginary beings invented by human minds.

As I said, it's this constant denial that if you think God or gods are not real then that obviously comes with some implicit baggage on how reality is to be viewed, as per my past statement, that shows your inherent irrationality. The fact that your quibbling that the number of dieties, as if it makes a significant difference to the point, is only further proof.

And obviously if I'm talking about atheism I'm going to paint atheists with the same brush. It's the fact that many atheists want to take concepts that are purely belonging in the theistic column, that's telling of atheists having their cake and eating it too. Atheism is indeed a religion, with their own various denominations. Only difference being that there are no central doctrines to atheism, and as such everyone is free to define it as they go,like you.

Quote

Atheism is not just about the God in the Bible. It is about gods in general, of which your God is just one instance. It is sheer nonsense to pretend that the God of the Bible is not conceived of as humanlike, as there are too many passages in it that prove otherwise. However, there are versions of belief that abstract away from humans, especially when Christians are anxious to support the claim that their God is not tainted by anthropomorphism. I understand your need to get away from that baggage, but it really follows you around and pops up whenever you pull out your Bible.

I didn't say " concieved as humanlike". I said an "idealized version of ourselves". Unfortunately your notion has been proven to fall short as the opposite is equal if the case is that God made man with His attributes, rather than man made God with man's attributes. One can see a marked difference between such false gods like Zeus, Ra, Apollo, Baal, etc. and God as the Bible teaches.

Quote

It is a common ploy of religious dogmatists such as yourself to try to claim that atheism is a religion, even though it is no more a religion than theism is. The ridiculous claim that atheists see themselves as God is particularly ironic when it issues forth from someone who constantly holds himself out as a spokesperson for the thoughts, intentions, and desires of a deity. It appears to me that you do not speak for your God. Your God speaks for you, because he can only speak to other human beings through you.

Well since you are quibbling about the difference betwenn God, and gods, I suppose it's only fitting that I point out that I said you are your god and rather than 'see yourself as God'.

Hehehehe. You assume much. The main assumption that refutes you is that you assume I actually desire the same thing God does. Truth is I want to steal. I want to lie when it benifits me. I certainly do not want to love my neighbor as myself, or put others before me. I honestly want to be extremely selfish. If I made a god to speak for me, one would sign off on all that. My God, however, does not condone such things. I know this because my God does not "speak to other human beings" through me. Rather He speaks through His doctrine that I had no part in writting. So how do you resolve the fact that in your claims of God being made up, the things God desires is markedly different and contradicting to the things I or any human being would willingly desire?

Quote

Atheists can certainly be as self-centered and arrogant as any human being, even a Christian, but few seem to think themselves in possession of supernatural powers.

True. It's the fact that so much of atheistic explanations fall outside or have not been shown to be the case by the very standard they uphold as the most reliable way to know things, that makes atheism the most arrogant of all religions.

Quote

If an atheist worships himself, he does not tend to confuse himself with God--at least, not nearly as much as Christians seem to when they wax enthusiastic about God's agenda for the human race.

It's the fact that Christianity inherently advocates that we are not the most important Beings in the universe, or even what should the main focus in our lives, that makes me roll my eyes at this.

Quote

Indeed, the question of why religion exists at all is a very interesting one, and a number of folks have written very interesting works on that subject. My favorite is Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He goes into great detail as to how and why religion is so ubiquitous in human society, given that it is so burdensome and costly to maintain it. He does not confine his research to Christianity, but to the general phenomenon of religion. Nor does he condemn religion as a phenomenon. His view of the subject is far more complex than you might imagine.

I'm sure. However the answer I have found is quite simple: religion is simply an inherent part of humanity due to Man being made in God's image. It's even reaffirmed by the fact that atheism is itself is a religion with it's own dogma.

Quote

There goes your broad brush again. Not every atheist feels the need to condemn religion, but your purpose here seems to be to stir up hatred towards those who would question belief in gods. If you felt truly confident and comfortable in your religious beliefs, you wouldn't feel the need to do this so often.

Actually it was taking your usual tact of "not being confident" by no other proof than I debate as shown by your statement here. I just took your game and went pro. That I stir up hatred in atheists or others of wordly views is not really surprising, given the Bible's addressment to this (2000 years and man is still predictable). It's the fact that hatred is the result of challenging such people, that's the telling difference since as a Christian I have no hatred.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #95 on:** August 19, 2008, 08:57:58 AM »

Danny:

Quote

Thank you for injecting some courteous and thoughtful good humour into this (previously) acrimonious debate.

If you can

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #96 on:** August 19, 2008, 09:06:37 AM »

Cop:

Quote

An angry, vengeful person will tend to think of God as somewhat of a cranky being. A kind, generous person will not usually think of God as full of anger and vengeful thoughts.

I

Copernicus · « **Reply #97 on:** August 19, 2008, 09:50:12 AM »

Two points, Sasquatch:

1) I like ABBA. People who hate ABBA think that they have good musical taste, but they don't. They are deluding themselves.

2) You took us on a long journey in that response to Danny, but you only meandered close to the central question: What is a "person"? If a mass of cells that isn't a person yet, but has the potential to become a person, is treated as a person, then we begin to slide down a rather steep slope. To what degree must we accord potential person cell masses (PPCMs) civil protections under the law? Should a fertility clinic mass-produce in vitro fertilized eggs en masse in order not to deprive potential people of the lives they are entitled to? Or are we just going to arbitrarily deprive zygotes of their rightful destinies? If human cloning should be perfected, would we then be obligated to preserve every cell that could be turned into a unique person in order to just give it a chance? Which PPCMs should have civil rights?

End Bringer · « **Reply #98 on:** August 19, 2008, 12:27:28 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 19, 2008, 09:50:12 AM

2) You took us on a long journey in that response to Danny, but you only meandered close to the central question: What is a "person"? If a mass of cells that isn't a person yet, but has the potential to become a person, is treated as a person, then we begin to slide down a rather steep slope. To what degree must we accord potential person cell masses (PPCMs) civil protections under the law? Should a fertility clinic mass-produce in vitro fertilized eggs en masse in order not to deprive potential people of the lives they are entitled to? Or are we just going to arbitrarily deprive zygotes of their rightful destinies? If human cloning should be perfected, would we then be obligated to preserve every cell that could be turned into a unique person in order to just give it a chance? Which PPCMs should have civil rights?

The problem with that is a fully adult human being is also a "mass of cells", as DB has often stated. How do we know anyone is a "person"? What is "personhood" to begin with? Where is the line and why is it there and not somewhere else? That's why this "Potential" arguement has always failed as it only addresses something will be a thing, but has no clear concept of when a thing is a thing.

As I said "personhood" is a tail wagging the dog arguement abortionists have invented when the issue of a fetus being a human being from the moment of conception was put to rest. However the answer is as simple as the issue of abortion is: A human being is inherently a person. A fetus is a human being. Ergo a person is created from the moment of conception. As such the issue of "What rights do we give them?" becomes far more easy to handle. If conception has occurred (process doesn't matter), then a human being is created and is afforded the same rights as every other human being. If conception has not occurred then no rights are in effect. A clear and solid line that defines when a thing is a thing, with the only issue people have with it is that it means an end to 98% of abortion, and puts limits on what kind of experiments scientists may use.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #99 on:** August 19, 2008, 01:48:10 PM »

Cop:

I'm not saying I have good musical taste (I used to be a fan of Blues Traveler, for example). I'm just saying that, despite your protestations otherwise, science has proven that ABBA is, in fact, the worst band in the history of music with "The Captain and Tenille" coming in a close second. That's an objective fact. It's Science. You can't argue with it, so don't even try.

Quote

You took us on a long journey in that response to Danny, but you only meandered close to the central question: What is a "person"?

There were two questions. One was "What is a person" and the other was "if we don't know the answer to #1, what then?" But you're right. I did meander. I work at OSU, remember. There isn't much going on here in the summer. That means lots and lots of free time for us lowly computer people.

Quote

If a mass of cells that isn't a person yet, but has the potential to become a person, is treated as a person, then we begin to slide down a rather steep slope.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I intended to say that the mass of cells that constitutes a fertilized egg might be a person and has the potential to develop through zygote and fetal phases, through babyhood and adolescence, and into adulthood. I said the potential to develop is what makes it a person, not that it might one day be a person once it develops.

Quote

To what degree must we accord potential person cell masses (PPCMs) civil protections under the law?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I think we should protect persons. Whether these are persons or not is currently up for discussion.

Quote

Should a fertility clinic mass-produce in vitro fertilized eggs en masse in order not to deprive potential people of the lives they are entitled to? Or are we just going to arbitrarily deprive zygotes of their rightful destinies? If human cloning should be perfected, would we then be obligated to preserve every cell that could be turned into a unique person in order to just give it a chance? Which PPCMs should have civil rights?

These "slippery slope" arguments are getting out of hand. Any philosophical point we make can be taken to an absurd extreme. In this case, none of the slippery slope arguments are a logical necessity. Pro-choicers are not Nazis and pro-lifers do not advocate shutting down fertility clinics to defend the rights of frozen sperm. How's about we take a couple steps in either direction and see where our opinions and ideas lead us before we start yelling about the angle and wetness of the ground beneath us, Agreed?

Author Topic: Abortion 2 (Read 21296 times)