"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[mighty_duck]

As an aside, allow me to offer a religious tinted point. It may come across as patronizing, but the intent is to tip my hat to some of the embedded wisdom that exists in all religions.

They say we are made in the image of God. What does that mean?
Does it mean God has DNA? Cellular mitochondria? Armpits? A CNS? No, that can’t be it.

Religious folk might say it has some metaphysical meaning. But a simpler answer might be that on our better days, we have some level of sentience, compassion, intent, consciousness, sapience etc. These are our “divine” qualities, the things that make us truly valuable – that define our personhood. Our soul, if you will.

In the physical realm, our “divine” qualities are completely dependent on a functioning cerebral cortex. A zygote has practically none of them. To claim that a zygote is made in the image of God, you either need to do metaphysical backflips (it has a hidden magic soul! ) , or demean God (or what we value as higher qualities). :think:

 

[alwight]

And that makes it OK to kill it?

"Kill" is all a bit emotive and over-dramatic of course, as you no doubt intended it to be, but indeed it will die, just as countless other zygotes have and will cease to exist only more naturally.
Depending on your beliefs then either by your God's deliberate design or just the way it has naturally evolved to be, only a minority survive to be born.

It appears that in grasping for straws you drew the short one.

:yawn:

How is your position not arbitrary, or dogmatic? And what good reason have you ever given for it?

Yes of course my position is somewhat arbitrary as to when I may conclude that a CNS is functioning well enough to start progressively giving the foetus greater human rights. But before a CNS exists at least seems a reasonably safe enough bet afaic. However it's not being dogmatic to want to use all the facts of each individual case to make an individual choice each time, while otoh it is clearly blatant dogmatism imo to simply conclude that allowing such an individual choice to abort must never be permitted under any circumstances.

 

[Lighthouse]

As an aside, allow me to offer a religious tinted point. It may come across as patronizing, but the intent is to tip my hat to some of the embedded wisdom that exists in all religions.

They say we are made in the image of God. What does that mean?
Does it mean God has DNA? Cellular mitochondria? Armpits? A CNS? No, that can’t be it.

Religious folk might say it has some metaphysical meaning. But a simpler answer might be that on our better days, we have some level of sentience, compassion, intent, consciousness, sapience etc. These are our “divine” qualities, the things that make us truly valuable – that define our personhood. Our soul, if you will.

In the physical realm, our “divine” qualities are completely dependent on a functioning cerebral cortex. A zygote has practically none of them. To claim that a zygote is made in the image of God, you either need to do metaphysical backflips (it has a hidden magic soul! ) , or demean God (or what we value as higher qualities). :think:

What this tells us is that you have no idea what being made in the image of God means.

"Kill" is all a bit emotive and over-dramatic of course, as you no doubt intended it to be, but indeed it will die, just as countless other zygotes have and will cease to exist only more naturally.
Depending on your beliefs then either by your God's deliberate design or just the way it has naturally evolved to be, only a minority survive to be born.

I'm using the same words PP does. Are they being emotive and over-dramatic?

And there is such a belief as that which holds that God did not design it this way, but it is a result of the fallen nature of man; which is a result of man breaking God's design.

Yes of course my position is somewhat arbitrary as to when I may conclude that a CNS is functioning well enough to start progressively giving the foetus greater human rights. But before a CNS exists at least seems a reasonably safe enough bet afaic. However it's not being dogmatic to want to use all the facts of each individual case to make an individual choice each time, while otoh it is clearly blatant dogmatism imo to simply conclude that allowing such an individual choice to abort must never be permitted under any circumstances.

Yeah, the choice to kill should be dependent upon the circumstances.

 

[mighty_duck]

What this tells us is that you have no idea what being made in the image of God means.

You could enlighten us with your view. Or you could continue to blow the foghorn* of negation.

---------------------------
*GC, how much royalty do you charge for your copyrights?

 

[Lighthouse]

You could enlighten us with your view. Or you could continue to blow the foghorn* of negation.

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[mighty_duck]

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

So a blanket negation?

 

[alwight]

I'm using the same words PP does. Are they being emotive and over-dramatic?

OK but personally I'd rather reserve the word "kill" for something rather more developed, significant and established than a zygote anyway.

And there is such a belief as that which holds that God did not design it this way, but it is a result of the fallen nature of man; which is a result of man breaking God's design.

I personally don't believe any such thing of course. Do you really expect that others who also doubt in your apologetics will simply accept your explanation for why life is often imperfect and apparently so wasteful of human "persons", if indeed "persons" are what they are as zygotes?
It seems far more likely to me anyway LH that life evolved naturally and isn't perfect simply because it doesn't need to be and only ever needs to be good enough.
You presumably won't agree of course.

Yeah, the choice to kill should be dependent upon the circumstances.

Yes perhaps sometimes abortion is considered to be for the best based on considering all the circumstances of an individual case, a choice that you dogmatically want to deny to others it seems.
But why would we listen to someone like you who apparently bases his "reasoning" on an ancient book's yarn about the misdeeds of some guy called Adam and the cursing of all humanity?

 

[WizardofOz]

You're inconsistent when it comes to a human being killed. In what other scenario (other than possibly capital punishment or war) are you OK with the legal and intentional killing of a human?

You're likely consistent in all aspects save abortion. Your possible qualifiers do not change the nature of what is taking place.

This is a circular argument. you assume that preservation of "human organisms" (my term) is important, and therefore preservation of "human organisms" is important.

What argument? Identify an argument from my above quote.

Any argument you may perceive as implied is as circular as any answer to 'why is it illegal to murder'? You assume that the preservation of human life is important and therefore the preservation of human life is important.

Waving your hands in the air yelling 'I perceive a possible fallacy in your question' isn't much of a rebuttal despite my confusion as to what you feel my argument is there.

Now, in what other scenario (other than possibly capital punishment or war) are you OK with the legal and intentional killing of a human?

Consistency itself isn't a reason to choose a particular standard.

Of course it is. It may not compel you but it is most certainly a reason. Further, being inconsistent is also known as holding a double standard, a fallacy itself.

How about stem cell research?

I have no problem with research done on "stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural causes".

We don't need embryonic stem cells to conduct research in the field.

It doesn't make much of a difference. With any standard you choose, there will be a second before and a second after.

When there's 46 chromosomes, we're dealing with a new human life. It should be protected as such.

Do medical professionals take deliberate action to purposely kill an adult without a working cerebral cortex? See the difference?

Actually, they do. People pronounced brain dead can be harvested for organs- thereby causing their complete death.

You've missed my point. How does an adult without a working cerebral cortex die? Does a doctor kill them or are they allowed to die naturally?

In abortion, the "human organism" is deliberately and unnaturally killed as opposed to a brain dead person being allowed to naturally pass away.

One death involves humans allowing nature to take its course, the other does not.

Wrong! There are millions of people whose lives depend on bone marrow transplants, blood donations, partial liver transplants etc.

We exchange lives for personal bodily sovereignty all the time.

Once again, there is an extremely significant difference between what you're comparing that you don't seem to be considering.

With bone marrow transplants, blood donations, partial liver transplants etc., the donor consents to be a donor. We don't even allow medical professional to take organs, etc from the deceased unless the deceased consented to such in life.

That was EXACTLY my point!
Even though it might costs someone's life, we protect the rights of people to maintain their bodily sovereignty.

Because we require consent from the donor. A zygote isn't exactly able to give consent to being aborted. Therefore, it's not a great comparison. What is required in one case isn't possible in the next.

You've reluctantly conceded to it as a compromise. Are you changing your position that it is actually immoral of us to prevent a rape victim from getting an abortion?

That's really tough. I would rather she keep it and give it up for adoption.

Is it immoral to prevent a rape victim from getting an abortion at 5 days but not at 5 months? You're in the same pickle as I am there.

I do feel that aborting is the greater evil but society needs to really support a person in a nightmare situation like this.

That's the thing with a rape victim taking a morning after pill. She couldn't be charged with a crime unless it could be proven that she was pregnant / there was a victim who was harmed.

I am not sure if I can offer a better answer but I will think about this one for a while (whether I want to or not) and see if I can.

Sorry to push the point, but it is key.
You didn't present an argument, except to repeat your assertion over and over. It is something we usually take for granted (and that's probably a good idea), but it is interesting to investigate why we believe as we do.

My argument has always been that human life (a human so others don't bring up toe nails) is protected by law. As a zygote is a human life, it should also be protected by law.

If a baby is born without a cerebral cortex, I would be deeply saddened for the expectant parents, but the child itself never felt pain, never had a thought. It was never a person.

You are entitled to your philosophical opinion

I'm not touching "person" because it is an intellectual black hole.

 

[mighty_duck]

What argument? Identify an argument from my above quote.

I was hoping to avoid the heavy lifting... alright, where is the back button?

WoO:All organisms biologically human should have a fundamental right to life.
MD:Why?
WoO: Logical consistency
MD: What is inconsistent about choosing any other identifier?
WoO: You're inconsistent when it comes to a human being killed

So you haven't answered the original question ("why?") - only made a circular assertion by way of an answer.

Please try again - why should all "human organisms" have a right to life?

Now, in what other scenario (other than possibly capital punishment or war) are you OK with the legal and intentional killing of a human?

In all other cases where a human who never had a working cerebral cortex uses another person's body against their will - I'd be OK with that person denying access to their body.

IOW, you're using a common but problematic mode of thought - trying to find generalities from other cases, even though there is nothing that really compares. Because the circumstances of abortion are so far removed from other cases, there is no inconsistency either way.

I've walked down a few hypotheticals that try to mimic the choices involved with abortion, but they are pretty unrealistic. Consistency wasn't a problem though, quite the contrary.

Of course it is. It may not compel you but it is most certainly a reason. Further, being inconsistent is also known as holding a double standard, a fallacy itself.

Show me the double standard of choosing a different standard to confer rights.

We don't need embryonic stem cells to conduct research in the field.

Researchers disagree - embryonic stem cells have more "plasticity" than any other cells. But I was using it as a case where we could pinpoint the moment you think human rights are conferred, and it has all of the problems of time X vs time X-Y of other cases.

You've missed my point. How does an adult without a working cerebral cortex die? Does a doctor kill them or are they allowed to die naturally?

In cases of organ harvesting from a brain dead patient, it is the doctors "unnatural" intervention that directly causes the complete death.

One death involves humans allowing nature to take its course, the other does not.

You skipped a question in my previous long winded post that seems important.

How is removing a feeding tube different from cutting the umbilical cord and letting "nature take its course"?

WoO wrote: allowing "bodily sovereignty" of human X to trump the life of human Y isn't exactly an equitable trade as far as the scales of justice tip.
MD wrote:We exchange lives for personal bodily sovereignty all the time.

Because we require consent from the donor. A zygote isn't exactly able to give consent to being aborted. Therefore, it's not a great comparison. What is required in one case isn't possible in the next.

You've confused the members in this comparison.
We respect the bodily sovereignty of the DONOR, even though it might cost the life of a person waiting for the donation.

That means, in this case, we value the donor's bodily sovereignty, even at the cost of another's life.

That doesn't mean it is fully applicable in the case of abortion (though I would argue the decision process is similar). It does contradict your generalized statement regarding the scales of justice above.

Is it immoral to prevent a rape victim from getting an abortion at 5 days but not at 5 months? You're in the same pickle as I am there.

Fair point - except that 99.9% of abortions happen before 5 months. Your moral dilemma deals with 100% of rape victims seeking abortions.

I am not sure if I can offer a better answer but I will think about this one for a while (whether I want to or not) and see if I can.

Sounds like a plan.

I'm not touching "person" because it is an intellectual black hole.

I guess you too are entitled to your philosophical opinion

 

[Lighthouse]

So a blanket negation?

I don't expect you to understand.

OK but personally I'd rather reserve the word "kill" for something rather more developed, significant and established than a zygote anyway.

Of course you would; anything to assuage guilt.

I personally don't believe any such thing of course. Do you really expect that others who also doubt in your apologetics will simply accept your explanation for why life is often imperfect and apparently so wasteful of human "persons", if indeed "persons" are what they are as zygotes?
It seems far more likely to me anyway LH that life evolved naturally and isn't perfect simply because it doesn't need to be and only ever needs to be good enough.
You presumably won't agree of course.

:doh:

There was no attempt to get you to believe the same as I do, simply to explain that there are those, such as myself, who do not believe either of the options you presented.:dunce::duh:

Yes perhaps sometimes abortion is considered to be for the best based on considering all the circumstances of an individual case, a choice that you dogmatically want to deny to others it seems.
But why would we listen to someone like you who apparently bases his "reasoning" on an ancient book's yarn about the misdeeds of some guy called Adam and the cursing of all humanity?

:yawn:

 

[alwight]

There was no attempt to get you to believe the same as I do, simply to explain that there are those, such as myself, who do not believe either of the options you presented.:dunce:

Fact is that easily the most zygotes fail naturally to become a foetus, they don't have a CNS so it is very hard for me at least to understand how a person with human rights would ever be thought to be part of such an apparently expendable non capable item.
You otoh seem to insist that nevertheless each zygote is an actual human "person" requiring protection in civil law.
You cite ancient scripture and imo a daft "Original Sin" doctrine, to explain away your God's own apparent lack of any concern for these vast numbers of failed zygotes/persons.
It could be instead that God has no great concerns for zygotes simply because He knows that a person requires a CNS or perhaps no physical means at all to exist? :idunno:

I don't see why anyone without your particular fundamentalist Christian beliefs would pay you and your ideas any heed at all on a civil, secular and medical matter which is after all what abortion is actually about.
Those who believe as you do will of course choose for themselves never to abort, but I think you should just keep out of the lives of others and their moral choices.

If the "person" part involved is somehow not of this material physical world nor a CNS, but instead is a spiritual entity perhaps, even then why would an Earthly abortion be of any ultimate risk to it at all or indeed any of those zygotes that more naturally failed?
On a purely material, non-spiritual, non-religious evidential basis the final choice to be pregnant or not must surely belong to the woman, yes even if she discovers she already is.

 

[Lighthouse]

Fact is that easily the most zygotes fail naturally to become a foetus, they don't have a CNS so it is very hard for me at least to understand how a person with human rights would ever be thought to be part of such an apparently expendable non capable item.
You otoh seem to insist that nevertheless each zygote is an actual human "person" requiring protection in civil law.

Protection from murder is irrelevant to natural death.

You cite ancient scripture and imo a daft "Original Sin" doctrine, to explain away your God's own apparent lack of any concern for these vast numbers of failed zygotes/persons.

The idea that we are broken as a result of the Fall is irrelevant to original sin. Do you even know what the doctrine of original sin is?

It could be instead that God has no great concerns for zygotes simply because He knows that a person requires a CNS or perhaps no physical means at all to exist? :idunno:

So, since some people die naturally in their old age God has no great concern for old people? You're not making any sense.

I don't see why anyone without your particular fundamentalist Christian beliefs would pay you and your ideas any heed at all on a civil, secular and medical matter which is after all what abortion is actually about.

Murder is a moral issue, whether or not you like to admit it.

Those who believe as you do will of course choose for themselves never to abort, but I think you should just keep out of the lives of others and their moral choices.

No.

1. Free speech
2. To leave alone what I believe to be murder would make me a hypocrite and a coward.

If the "person" part involved is somehow not of this material physical world nor a CNS, but instead is a spiritual entity perhaps, even then why would an Earthly abortion be of any ultimate risk to it at all or indeed any of those zygotes that more naturally failed?

It's not a spiritual thing.

On a purely material, non-spiritual, non-religious evidential basis the final choice to be pregnant or not must surely belong to the woman, yes even if she discovers she already is.

Inconvenience or simple desire are never valid reasons to kill someone.

 

[alwight]

Protection from murder is irrelevant to natural death.

Murder requires a person to do it to.

The idea that we are broken as a result of the Fall is irrelevant to original sin. Do you even know what the doctrine of original sin is?

Do you?
However whichever is your particular version of OS none have any material basis in fact and is only imo a rather silly apologetics device to explain away how we imperfect humans resulted from your supposedly perfect God.
Darwinian evolution is a much more likely and rational explanation for human imperfection. My own views on abortion are derived from only materially evidenced reasonng, not a convenient apologetics doctrine.
If as I think a person cannot physically exist until a CNS begins to function then maybe your fundamentalist salvation ideas all rather fly out the window?

So, since some people die naturally in their old age God has no great concern for old people? You're not making any sense.

How are you making any sense? Old people got to have a life and became persons, what are you talking about?

Murder is a moral issue, whether or not you like to admit it.

I don't support murder.

No.

1. Free speech
2. To leave alone what I believe to be murder would make me a hypocrite and a coward.

I only suggest that you ultimately allow others to follow their own consciences and to choose for themselves as to whether anyone is being murdered or not, or indeed if apparent material factual reality of a CNS (say) seems rather more likely than your fundamentalist doctrine of Original Sin.

It's not a spiritual thing.

An actual person somehow physically existing within a zygote biology is nevertheless clearly not evidenced in any material fact. Where is it then?
But otoh it is something you perhaps have to believe anyway or your version of Original Sin and salvation all rather vanishes in a puff of logic imo.

Inconvenience or simple desire are never valid reasons to kill someone.

There may be occasions imo when the killing of someone is justifiable and whether or not it is only convenience, or even a person, should be up to those directly concerned, not someone who only wants to cling on dogmatically to a fundamentalist religious doctrine afaic.
If you were to ever accept that a new person does emerge from a new CNS, not before, then it would clearly be free of any supposed sins of Adam and therefore a totally innocent new person, which you and your dogma don't want to accept, right?

 

[Lighthouse]

Murder requires a person to do it to.

I cannot fathom the depths of your willful ignorance.

Do you?
However whichever is your particular version of OS none have any material basis in fact and is only imo a rather silly apologetics device to explain away how we imperfect humans resulted from your supposedly perfect God.

OS is the idea that we are condemned as a result of sin entering into toe world; so while it is not completely divorced from the Fall there are those who believe as I mentioned regarding the Fall who also believe we are condemned only for our own sin, and thus disagree with the doctrine of OS.

Darwinian evolution is a much more likely and rational explanation for human imperfection.

Sure it is. And ducks are a much more likely and rational explanation for chairs.

My own views on abortion are derived from only materially evidenced reasonng, not a convenient apologetics doctrine.

Your view: They're not people, so it's OK to kill them.

You know, that sounds familiar.:think:

If as I think a person cannot physically exist until a CNS begins to function then maybe your fundamentalist salvation ideas all rather fly out the window?

Non sequitur.

How are you making any sense? Old people got to have a life and became persons, what are you talking about?

It makes as much sense as your dipstick comment.

I don't support murder.

:darwinsm:

I only suggest that you ultimately allow others to follow their own consciences and to choose for themselves as to whether anyone is being murdered or not, or indeed if apparent material factual reality of a CNS (say) seems rather more likely than your fundamentalist doctrine of Original Sin.

As I said, OS has nothing to do with this.

As for the rest, why don't you make me? Come on; put up or shut up.

"Shut Me Out"

Tell me something I don't already know
I know that you can't stand these things I'm preaching in the streets
But how can I contain the truth I hold inside
With all the hurting people that I see so I don't mind
Putting up with you, and all the things you say
I'm not about to stop or even change my ways

There's nothing you can say
That will take me away from this life
There's nothing you can do
To shut me up when I'm speaking the truth

You may not like all I have to say
But you can't prove that everything is filled with empty words
I know my life and inside how I've changed
A testimony to the truth I speak, so I don't mind
Putting up with you, and all the things you say
I'm not about to stop or even change my ways

There's nothing you can say
That will take me away from this life
There's nothing you can do
to shut me up, to shut me out when I'm speaking the truth

-Kutless
​

An actual person somehow physically existing within a zygote biology is nevertheless clearly not evidenced in any material fact. Where is it then?

A separate entity from the mother, one with which the mother was not born. Said entity has its own DNA unique from the mother's. It also has the coding and ability to grow and develop; one cell that was made from two and develops into a multi celled organism.

Your precious CNS would never exist if the coding and the ability to follow the code and build said CNS wasn't already present in the single cell.

But otoh it is something you perhaps have to believe anyway or your version of Original Sin and salvation all rather vanishes in a puff of logic imo.

You have no idea what I believe regarding OS, so why are you blathering so smugly? Arrogance doesn't look any better on you than it does on Granite.

There may be occasions imo when the killing of someone is justifiable and whether or not it is only convenience, or even a person, should be up to those directly concerned, not someone who only wants to cling on dogmatically to a fundamentalist religious doctrine afaic.

Whether or not a person is a person is not a matter of opinion, or choice. It is either a person or it is not. And as one who believes it to be a person I would be, as I have said, a coward and a hypocrite if I did not work to convince others of the same.

And, FYI, anti-choice regarding abortion is not solely found among those who believe in a God. For instance, TOL's very own Rusha, who has posted in this thread, is an atheist [or at best an agnostic] and she agrees with me on this, even to the point of eschewing the pro-life moniker, because she also agrees with me on the death penalty [to an extent].

Do you want to accuse her of taking her position out of some desire to "cling on dogmatically to a fundamentalist religious doctrine"?

If you were to ever accept that a new person does emerge from a new CNS, not before, then it would clearly be free of any supposed sins of Adam and therefore a totally innocent new person, which you and your dogma don't want to accept, right?

What?

What does OS have to do with anything here?

Even if I were wrong about when a person becomes a person that would not negate their condemnation as a result of sin entering the world.

And, FYI, even though we are condemned as a result of that, we are not condemned for the sin Adam, or Eve, committed; we are all free of their sin.

 

[alwight]

Murder requires a person to do it to.

I cannot fathom the depths of your willful ignorance.

By all means then do show me where the physical “person” actually exists in a zygote LH and I will honestly try to understand. I wonder however if you actually want to understand yourself that because I don’t accept that there is any means by which a zygote could function as a “person” then at that point at least afaic there simply isn’t one?

Do you?
However whichever is your particular version of OS none have any material basis in fact and is only imo a rather silly apologetics device to explain away how we imperfect humans resulted from your supposedly perfect God.

OS is the idea that we are condemned as a result of sin entering into toe world; so while it is not completely divorced from the Fall there are those who believe as I mentioned regarding the Fall who also believe we are condemned only for our own sin, and thus disagree with the doctrine of OS.

Just to be clear then about your views specifically, in your view we are all born tainted with sin simply by being a human person presumably from the magic moment of conception?
There is for you no period of time when a zygote is simply a container of a new DNA that may or may not manage to start the process of gestation, it is already a person?
Even if it becomes two persons? :liberals:

If nevertheless a “person” is actually something that needs to develop materially within the CNS, as and when it appears, then clearly your doctrine of OS passed on at conception is again utter nonsense since there would be a gap without a person being present to carry it on. Every new “person” would therefore be totally innocent and blameless, as indeed they are anyway imo if not in yours or your doctrine.
Clearly if a “person” presumably condemned with OS was somehow built into a new DNA at conception then it would only be able to produce that one person which we know is factually not true.
Perhaps you think there is an OS gene?
But of course there being such a gene for homosexuality say would just be plain daft, right?

Darwinian evolution is a much more likely and rational explanation for human imperfection.

Sure it is. And ducks are a much more likely and rational explanation for chairs.

And you called me wilfully ignorant.:hammer:

My own views on abortion are derived from only materially evidenced reasonng, not a convenient apologetics doctrine.

Your view: They're not people, so it's OK to kill them.

You know, that sounds familiar.:think:

As already explained I don’t want to kill people I simply want the freedom to make human choices based on real evidence and circumstances of each case.

If as I think a person cannot physically exist until a CNS begins to function then maybe your fundamentalist salvation ideas all rather fly out the window?

Non sequitur.

I’m not so sure about that, as above.

How are you making any sense? Old people got to have a life and became persons, what are you talking about?

It makes as much sense as your dipstick comment.

Imo you don’t really care at all about the vast numbers of zygotes/“persons” (in your view, not mine) that naturally fail to be born and to live lives because that’s all some guy called Adam’s fault for rebelling against God, never mind the tiny few you argue for here. You only care about maintaining your OS dogma/doctrine and in how you personally are saved by adhering to it.

I don't support murder.

:darwinsm:

As above. lain:

I only suggest that you ultimately allow others to follow their own consciences and to choose for themselves as to whether anyone is being murdered or not, or indeed if apparent material factual reality of a CNS (say) seems rather more likely than your fundamentalist doctrine of Original Sin.

As I said, OS has nothing to do with this.

So you say, but frankly I don’t believe you.:nono:

As for the rest, why don't you make me? Come on; put up or shut up.
"Shut Me Out"

Tell me something I don't already know
I know that you can't stand these things I'm preaching in the streets
But how can I contain the truth I hold inside
With all the hurting people that I see so I don't mind
Putting up with you, and all the things you say
I'm not about to stop or even change my ways

There's nothing you can say
That will take me away from this life
There's nothing you can do
To shut me up when I'm speaking the truth

You may not like all I have to say
But you can't prove that everything is filled with empty words
I know my life and inside how I've changed
A testimony to the truth I speak, so I don't mind
Putting up with you, and all the things you say
I'm not about to stop or even change my ways

There's nothing you can say
That will take me away from this life
There's nothing you can do
to shut me up, to shut me out when I'm speaking the truth
-Kutless

I’d fight for anyone’s right to have their say but that doesn’t include a right to just impose your abortion morality in civil law on those who simply disagree with you. If the unborn perhaps do have rights then let’s un-dogmatically look at all the facts for each case and decide what if any rights and circumstances must be weighed against the woman’s right to choose not to be pregnant.

An actual person somehow physically existing within a zygote biology is nevertheless clearly not evidenced in any material fact. Where is it then?

A separate entity from the mother, one with which the mother was not born. Said entity has its own DNA unique from the mother's. It also has the coding and ability to grow and develop; one cell that was made from two and develops into a multi celled organism.

Your precious CNS would never exist if the coding and the ability to follow the code and build said CNS wasn't already present in the single cell.

And imo without a CNS there is no person.
“Persons” are unique entities imo, but we already know that the same DNA can produce multiple “persons” so it can’t be that which is unique. Face it, the only unique thing imo is the CNS itself and how it specifically develops over time.

But otoh it is something you perhaps have to believe anyway or your version of Original Sin and salvation all rather vanishes in a puff of logic imo.

You have no idea what I believe regarding OS, so why are you blathering so smugly? Arrogance doesn't look any better on you than it does on Granite.

How did Granite get into this, does he worry you too? Maybe about the things you don’t really want to think about that may nevertheless actually be the real truth rather than the fairytale doctrine derived version of life that you seem imo to immerse yourself in?

There may be occasions imo when the killing of someone is justifiable and whether or not it is only convenience, or even a person, should be up to those directly concerned, not someone who only wants to cling on dogmatically to a fundamentalist religious doctrine afaic.

Whether or not a person is a person is not a matter of opinion, or choice. It is either a person or it is not. And as one who believes it to be a person I would be, as I have said, a coward and a hypocrite if I did not work to convince others of the same.

If you believe that a zygote is a person with the same rights as a woman while I think and care that the extant woman has far more right to a reasonable life of her own choosing, while the zygote has no particular value at all then by all means make your case but my moral ground is just as high as yours.

And, FYI, anti-choice regarding abortion is not solely found among those who believe in a God. For instance, TOL's very own Rusha, who has posted in this thread, is an atheist [or at best an agnostic] and she agrees with me on this, even to the point of eschewing the pro-life moniker, because she also agrees with me on the death penalty [to an extent].

Do you want to accuse her of taking her position out of some desire to "cling on dogmatically to a fundamentalist religious doctrine"?

Yes I know, and each will have own reasoning which I am happy to argue and have already done so in this thread. Currently your particular reasoning is my concern here not perhaps any “strange bedfellows” you can muster.

If you were to ever accept that a new person does emerge from a new CNS, not before, then it would clearly be free of any supposed sins of Adam and therefore a totally innocent new person, which you and your dogma don't want to accept, right?

What?

What does OS have to do with anything here?

Even if I were wrong about when a person becomes a person that would not negate their condemnation as a result of sin entering the world.

And, FYI, even though we are condemned as a result of that, we are not condemned for the sin Adam, or Eve, committed; we are all free of their sin.

Case in point, I think your own particular anti-abortion reasons are simply dogmatic and religious. Clearly you have no particular concerns for all those countless lost zygote “persons” that you are happy to give your God a free pass on, so I really don’t think you give a jot about the tiny few who are actually aborted unnaturally. You probably do care about adherence to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and in your own supposed salvation (imo).

 

[Lighthouse]

By all means then do show me where the physical “person” actually exists in a zygote LH and I will honestly try to understand.

We've been over this: the physical entity of the zygote is the physical person.

I wonder however if you actually want to understand yourself that because I don’t accept that there is any means by which a zygote could function as a “person” then at that point at least afaic there simply isn’t one?

I understand what you don't accept; I'm just convinced you're being wilfully ignorant.

Just to be clear then about your views specifically, in your view we are all born tainted with sin simply by being a human person presumably from the magic moment of conception?

No, we are not tainted with sin until we sin. We are, at the least, born separated from God until we make a choice after an age where we are aware enough to be held accountable for our decision.

There is for you no period of time when a zygote is simply a container of a new DNA that may or may not manage to start the process of gestation, it is already a person?
Even if it becomes two persons? :liberals:

Yes.

While it may become two, or three, etc. persons, it is still at least one person. And it is most certainly a separate being from the mother.

If nevertheless a “person” is actually something that needs to develop materially within the CNS, as and when it appears, then clearly your doctrine of OS passed on at conception is again utter nonsense since there would be a gap without a person being present to carry it on. Every new “person” would therefore be totally innocent and blameless, as indeed they are anyway imo if not in yours or your doctrine.

In my opinion and doctrine they are completely innocent and blameless anyway.

You don't even get a gold star for effort.

Clearly if a “person” presumably condemned with OS was somehow built into a new DNA at conception then it would only be able to produce that one person which we know is factually not true.
Perhaps you think there is an OS gene?
But of course there being such a gene for homosexuality say would just be plain daft, right?

Even in the event your description of OS were as it is, it would not be physical and thus there would be no gene.

However, I don't buy into such a doctrine so this is irrelevant.

And you called me wilfully ignorant.:hammer:

Just trying to make as much sense as you do.

As already explained I don’t want to kill people I simply want the freedom to make human choices based on real evidence and circumstances of each case.

Balderdash!

I’m not so sure about that, as above.

The point at which a person exists makes no difference to my soteriology.

Imo you don’t really care at all about the vast numbers of zygotes/“persons” (in your view, not mine) that naturally fail to be born and to live lives because that’s all some guy called Adam’s fault for rebelling against God, never mind the tiny few you argue for here. You only care about maintaining your OS dogma/doctrine and in how you personally are saved by adhering to it.

1. I care no more for the naturally aborted than I do for those who have lived and die naturally.
2. My feelings on natural death have nothing to do with The Fall.
3. My salvation is not predicated on my belief regarding OS.
4. And, lastly, Adam didn't rebel; he disobeyed.

As above. lain:

Still a joke.

So you say, but frankly I don’t believe you.:nono:

And I don't care.

I’d fight for anyone’s right to have their say but that doesn’t include a right to just impose your abortion morality in civil law on those who simply disagree with you. If the unborn perhaps do have rights then let’s un-dogmatically look at all the facts for each case and decide what if any rights and circumstances must be weighed against the woman’s right to choose not to be pregnant.

She chose to have sex...

And imo without a CNS there is no person.
“Persons” are unique entities imo, but we already know that the same DNA can produce multiple “persons” so it can’t be that which is unique. Face it, the only unique thing imo is the CNS itself and how it specifically develops over time.

You really can't pay attention can you?

My argument is not regarding the uniqueness of the DNA in and of itself, but rather the uniqueness of it apart from the mother's.

So, if identical twins, sharing the same DNA signature are born from the zygote they are still unique entities from their mother, and the DNA signature they share is different, and thus unique from their mother's.

How did Granite get into this, does he worry you too? Maybe about the things you don’t really want to think about that may nevertheless actually be the real truth rather than the fairytale doctrine derived version of life that you seem imo to immerse yourself in?

I brought him up because you're being arrogant, and Granite is the most arrogant person on TOL. I was making a comparison.

If you believe that a zygote is a person with the same rights as a woman while I think and care that the extant woman has far more right to a reasonable life of her own choosing, while the zygote has no particular value at all then by all means make your case but my moral ground is just as high as yours.

Keep telling yourself that.

Yes I know, and each will have own reasoning which I am happy to argue and have already done so in this thread. Currently your particular reasoning is my concern here not perhaps any “strange bedfellows” you can muster.

The only issue wherein my personal theological beliefs have come into play here is regarding my belief as to why natural abortions occur.

The problem is that you can't get past the fact that I have certain theological beliefs, so you decided that I must hold my position on abortion solely because of those beliefs, and that I cannot hold said position for any other reason.

You're being presumptuous; and rather pompous about it, to boot. To the point that you are assigning beliefs to me that I do not even hold, because you can't grasp the possibility that I could be anti-abortion if I don't hold such things to be true. It's as though you have an innate inability to reason.

Case in point, I think your own particular anti-abortion reasons are simply dogmatic and religious. Clearly you have no particular concerns for all those countless lost zygote “persons” that you are happy to give your God a free pass on, so I really don’t think you give a jot about the tiny few who are actually aborted unnaturally. You probably do care about adherence to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and in your own supposed salvation (imo).

Speaking of case in point.

And you're too stupid to even consider the idea that some people don't blame God for the deaths of those who die naturally, due to the fact that God isn't at all responsible for their deaths; He didn't kill them, either directly or indirectly. God had no hand in their deaths, whatsoever. So the idea that I'm giving God a free pass makes no rational sense.

It's a good thing you're not a dog; they get put down when they foam at the mouth.

 

[alwight]

We've been over this: the physical entity of the zygote is the physical person.

No it isn't.

I understand what you don't accept; I'm just convinced you're being wilfully ignorant.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want LH, I at least don't seek civil laws to control the lives and choices of others based on mine.

No, we are not tainted with sin until we sin. We are, at the least, born separated from God until we make a choice after an age where we are aware enough to be held accountable for our decision.

As above.

Yes.

While it may become two, or three, etc. persons, it is still at least one person. And it is most certainly a separate being from the mother.

So the number of "persons" that iyo your God allows to be lost naturally and never to have lives is probably quite a bit more than I thought? :think:

In my opinion and doctrine they are completely innocent and blameless anyway.

As would be the huge numbers of innocent "persons" that you are apparently happy to accept don't even get a chance to decide for themselves if your God exists or not.
But then again you cited the "Fall" as justification for blaming humans rather than your omnipotent God for this state of affairs and yet now as it suits you they are all blameless and innocent persons, I really think you should try to make your mind up LH. In your mind apparently by far the most persons that have ever existed never even got take a breath of air, that's quite dreadful isn't it?
If you are right why wouldn't your God do something to stop it?

Even in the event your description of OS were as it is, it would not be physical and thus there would be no gene.

However, I don't buy into such a doctrine so this is irrelevant.

Then how does your citing of the "Fall" justify such a tragic natural loss of "persons" while your God stands by?
If your God exists LH then clearly they aren't "persons" at all, your own God would be testament to that imo. Your own God would be witness that zygotes are not "persons".

The point at which a person exists makes no difference to my soteriology.

So why insist that extant persons should not be allowed to make their own moral choices about what is best for their lives?

1. I care no more for the naturally aborted than I do for those who have lived and die naturally.
2. My feelings on natural death have nothing to do with The Fall.
3. My salvation is not predicated on my belief regarding OS.
4. And, lastly, Adam didn't rebel; he disobeyed.

You cited the "Fall" as your reasoning to justify the loss of most of humanity who are pre-destined to fail. In your mind your God does nothing to sort this tragic state of affairs out, apparently because humans are to blame themselves. :dizzy:
Do you even have a clue what will save you LH because I sure don't think you do.

She chose to have sex...

And sex is only for having babies right?

You really can't pay attention can you?

My argument is not regarding the uniqueness of the DNA in and of itself, but rather the uniqueness of it apart from the mother's.

So, if identical twins, sharing the same DNA signature are born from the zygote they are still unique entities from their mother, and the DNA signature they share is different, and thus unique from their mother's.

It's clear to me LH that you have no particular concerns for most "persons" at all by your definition, only those that you think are killed by their own mothers. Your intent is simply to control the moral choices of others according to your beliefs using civil secular laws. I think you should just butt out.

I brought him up because you're being arrogant, and Granite is the most arrogant person on TOL. I was making a comparison.

So anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is simply being arrogant?

Keep telling yourself that.

I'd say actually my morality is quite a bit higher than yours is, but I didn't want to appear to be arrogant.lain:

The only issue wherein my personal theological beliefs have come into play here is regarding my belief as to why natural abortions occur.

The problem is that you can't get past the fact that I have certain theological beliefs, so you decided that I must hold my position on abortion solely because of those beliefs, and that I cannot hold said position for any other reason.

You're being presumptuous; and rather pompous about it, to boot. To the point that you are assigning beliefs to me that I do not even hold, because you can't grasp the possibility that I could be anti-abortion if I don't hold such things to be true. It's as though you have an innate inability to reason.

I simply wonder why all the great show of concern you have for a few albeit unnaturally aborted supposed "persons" while so many lost zygotes rather indicates that even your God wouldn't think they are "persons" yet.
If you then cite a religious doctrine to me then I'll respond to that as I see it, which is a response not presumption. You should no doubt be able correct me as to your own specific beliefs though I'm not so sure you can any more.

Speaking of case in point.

And you're too stupid to even consider the idea that some people don't blame God for the deaths of those who die naturally, due to the fact that God isn't at all responsible for their deaths; He didn't kill them, either directly or indirectly. God had no hand in their deaths, whatsoever. So the idea that I'm giving God a free pass makes no rational sense.

It's a good thing you're not a dog; they get put down when they foam at the mouth.

I of course can't respond to you in a similar manner because unlike you I would probably be deemed to be calling you names without a cause, so I at least will remain calm and polite.
However thanks for informing me either that your omnipotent etc God could do something to change things but doesn't on some hard to understand religious notion of humans having only themselves to blame, or maybe that He simply knows there is no problem until a CNS and an actual person exists, or perhaps that your God can't actually do anything or may not even exist. :liberals:

 

[WizardofOz]

I was hoping to avoid the heavy lifting... alright, where is the back button?

WoO:All organisms biologically human should have a fundamental right to life.
MD:Why?
WoO: Logical consistency
MD: What is inconsistent about choosing any other identifier?
WoO: You're inconsistent when it comes to a human being killed

So you haven't answered the original question ("why?") - only made a circular assertion by way of an answer.

Please try again - why should all "human organisms" have a right to life?

Well, logical consistency is an answer. I'm not sure why you feel it's not. If you choose another qualifier (heartbeat, CNS, etc) you're creating a loophole in which a human can be legally killed for no reason at all.

Abortion harms a human victim who cannot consent to the act. Under no other similar circumstance can you legally and purposefully harm another human without recourse. Again, consistency is an answer and it is my answer.

Otherwise, why is it generally illegal to kill? Assume any answer you offer will sufficiently answer your own question.

Now, in what other scenario (other than possibly capital punishment or war) are you OK with the legal and intentional killing of a human?

In all other cases where a human who never had a working cerebral cortex uses another person's body against their will - I'd be OK with that person denying access to their body.

IOW, you're using a common but problematic mode of thought - trying to find generalities from other cases, even though there is nothing that really compares. Because the circumstances of abortion are so far removed from other cases, there is no inconsistency either way.

I've walked down a few hypotheticals that try to mimic the choices involved with abortion, but they are pretty unrealistic. Consistency wasn't a problem though, quite the contrary.

This should tell you something. This is why I view most pro-choice arguments as special pleading and/or double standard arguments. Under no other circumstances is the pro-choicer "OK" with (innocent) human life being killed off unnecessarily.

Show me the double standard of choosing a different standard to confer rights.

Because you apply a certain standard to all humans and some unborn humans but clearly rationalize an exception for other unborn humans.

Researchers disagree - embryonic stem cells have more "plasticity" than any other cells. But I was using it as a case where we could pinpoint the moment you think human rights are conferred, and it has all of the problems of time X vs time X-Y of other cases.

Fertilization, when the new being is formed and has 46 chromosomes. I don't see a problem, it's rather straightforward.

In cases of organ harvesting from a brain dead patient, it is the doctors "unnatural" intervention that directly causes the complete death.

Explain the nature of the unnatural intervention.

See what I did there?

How is removing a feeding tube different from cutting the umbilical cord and letting "nature take its course"?

A feeding tube is artificial means of sustaining life. An umbilical cord is a natural means of sustaining life. If a feeding tube is removed and the patient dies, the patient wasn't killed but was allowed to die. In abortion, the human is targeted for death; quite an unnatural method indeed.

You've confused the members in this comparison.
We respect the bodily sovereignty of the DONOR, even though it might cost the life of a person waiting for the donation.

That means, in this case, we value the donor's bodily sovereignty, even at the cost of another's life.

That doesn't mean it is fully applicable in the case of abortion (though I would argue the decision process is similar). It does contradict your generalized statement regarding the scales of justice above.

The person needing a donor isn't killed by the lack of consent, they are killed from the defect that caused them to need a donor in the first place!

Further, it's not so much that we value bodily sovereignty. We value consent! Except when dealing with.....

Because unless the woman was raped, there is a rather large aspect of consent given engaging in activities that we can reasonably predict may lead to procreating.

 

[mighty_duck]

Well, logical consistency is an answer. I'm not sure why you feel it's not. If you choose another qualifier (heartbeat, CNS, etc) you're creating a loophole in which a human can be legally killed for no reason at all.

Abortion harms a human victim who cannot consent to the act. Under no other similar circumstance can you legally and purposefully harm another human without recourse. Again, consistency is an answer and it is my answer.

How can I demonstrate the circularity in your answer?

Consistency with what? You choose a standard, you stick with your standard. Great! But I asked why choose that standard. Your answer is that you choose that standard so you can stick to that standard.

I like cookies because I like cookies, and cookies are what I like because I like them. But why do I like cookies? So I can be consistent with my love for cookies.

Replace your standard with any other standard, and obey it consistently, and you will be consistent with that standard.

This should tell you something. This is why I view most pro-choice arguments as special pleading and/or double standard arguments. Under no other circumstances is the pro-choicer "OK" with (innocent) human life being killed off unnecessarily.

All it tells you is that your standard is slightly wider than my standard. Nothing else. That doesn't make it better. Otherwise a slightly wider standard would trump yours.

But that is practically your whole argument here.

Because you apply a certain standard to all humans and some unborn humans but clearly rationalize an exception for other unborn humans.

I apply one standard for all people - humans with a functioning cerebral cortex.


MD Wrote:In cases of organ harvesting from a brain dead patient, it is the doctors "unnatural" intervention that directly causes the complete death.

Explain the nature of the unnatural intervention.

A scalpel and saw opening up the chest, more sharp instruments removing the organs until the heart is removed and the patient is dead as a doorknob.

A feeding tube is artificial means of sustaining life. An umbilical cord is a natural means of sustaining life. If a feeding tube is removed and the patient dies, the patient wasn't killed but was allowed to die. In abortion, the human is targeted for death; quite an unnatural method indeed.

This is a distinction without a difference. The umbilical cord is a natural feeding tube. Cutting either will lead to death.

The person needing a donor isn't killed by the lack of consent, they are killed from the defect that caused them to need a donor in the first place!

But the decision facing US is what is more important - the donor's personal bodily sovereignty, or the patient's life. And we value the donor's bodily sovereignty - making your original statement (that this is a no brainer) false!

Further, it's not so much that we value bodily sovereignty. We value consent! Except when dealing with.....

A woman's right to consent to who can use her body?

Because unless the woman was raped, there is a rather large aspect of consent given engaging in activities that we can reasonably predict may lead to procreating.

I think we've been over this a couple of times.

A woman does not give up control of her own body by consenting to sex. To suggest so devalues all women. To suggest this is so only to protect the life of a brainless organism is to defy reason.
To suggest this is so even if she did not consent to sex removes all moral standing.

 

[Lighthouse]

No it isn't.

:blabla:

You are entitled to believe whatever you want LH, I at least don't seek civil laws to control the lives and choices of others based on mine.

:blabla:

As above.

:blabla:

So the number of "persons" that iyo your God allows to be lost naturally and never to have lives is probably quite a bit more than I thought? :think:

Do you have a point?

As would be the huge numbers of innocent "persons" that you are apparently happy to accept don't even get a chance to decide for themselves if your God exists or not.

You're never going to learn not to make the mistake of assuming, are you?

Why would you assume I believe they will never have said chance?

But then again you cited the "Fall" as justification for blaming humans rather than your omnipotent God for this state of affairs and yet now as it suits you they are all blameless and innocent persons, I really think you should try to make your mind up LH.

:doh:

I am not innocent and blameless, and neither are you; however, as infants, fetuses, embryos, zygotes we were.

I really think you should try to use your mind, for once.

In your mind apparently by far the most persons that have ever existed never even got take a breath of air, that's quite dreadful isn't it?
If you are right why wouldn't your God do something to stop it?

Because He's not a bleeding heart.

Then how does your citing of the "Fall" justify such a tragic natural loss of "persons" while your God stands by?

See above.

If your God exists LH then clearly they aren't "persons" at all, your own God would be testament to that imo. Your own God would be witness that zygotes are not "persons".

Non sequitur

So why insist that extant persons should not be allowed to make their own moral choices about what is best for their lives?

I insist they should not be allowed to kill an innocent, for any reason. Murder is not best for anyone's life; either the murderers or the victims.

You cited the "Fall" as your reasoning to justify the loss of most of humanity who are pre-destined to fail.

Predestined to fail? Again, you are under a mistaken assumption; I'm not a Calvinist.:nono:

And what is there to justify? There is no need to justify natural occurrences.:nono:

In your mind your God does nothing to sort this tragic state of affairs out, apparently because humans are to blame themselves. :dizzy:

Apparently you can't breath without making an assumption.

Do you even have a clue what will save you LH because I sure don't think you do.

Am I supposed to believe you do?

P.S.
I have no need to worry about what will save me; I'm already saved.

Thanks for playing, though.

And sex is only for having babies right?

:nono:

It's for enjoyment, as well. And for making a connection with someone you love. As well as many other things.

It's clear to me LH that you have no particular concerns for most "persons" at all by your definition, only those that you think are killed by their own mothers. Your intent is simply to control the moral choices of others according to your beliefs using civil secular laws. I think you should just butt out.

I have concern for all murder victims, whether young or old, born or unborn.

I also have concern for people who aren't murder victims, or even victims of anything. Go ahead and ask my friends if I have no concern for them.

And you can think whatever you want; you don't always get what you want. But go ahead and wish in one hand...

So anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is simply being arrogant?

Nope.

I induced your arrogance from your presumptive attitude and your conceit that you are right in your assumptions, which you make with no basis in available evidence.

I'd say actually my morality is quite a bit higher than yours is, but I didn't want to appear to be arrogant.lain:

You couldn't back it up with any evidence, anyway. And that would definitely make you look arrogant.

I simply wonder why all the great show of concern you have for a few albeit unnaturally aborted supposed "persons" while so many lost zygotes rather indicates that even your God wouldn't think they are "persons" yet.

How would that indicate that God doesn't think they are persons? Do these nonsense things you say actually make sense to you?

If you then cite a religious doctrine to me then I'll respond to that as I see it, which is a response not presumption. You should no doubt be able correct me as to your own specific beliefs though I'm not so sure you can any more.

I brought up The Fall, you turned it into OS and proceeded to lay out presumptions as to what I believed, with no basis in available evidence. And it seems that so far you are mostly mistaken about my theology and soteriology. And you are mistaken in the presumption that either of them have anything to do with my opposition to the murder of the unborn.

I of course can't respond to you in a similar manner because unlike you I would probably be deemed to be calling you names without a cause, so I at least will remain calm and polite.

If you could actually back it up with evidence, as I did, you wouldn't be doing it without a cause.

However thanks for informing me either that your omnipotent etc God could do something to change things but doesn't on some hard to understand religious notion of humans having only themselves to blame, or maybe that He simply knows there is no problem until a CNS and an actual person exists, or perhaps that your God can't actually do anything or may not even exist. :liberals:

God isn't in the habit of fixing things if the people involved don't want Him to, especially when nothing actually needs fixing.

And then there's the fact that when something does need fixing and those involved want it fixed God trusts them to use the will He gave them to fix it themselves, or to at least try, and not to rely on Him to fix except for as a last resort. God isn't Christina Aguilera; He's not a genie in a bottle.