Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
|
Only when a life is created, is a soul produced to represent that life
Are single cell organisms alive?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 10:28pm PT
|
Philo, like plants, they are "alive", but IMO they are soul-less. Did you read my previous post?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:46am PT
|
MB, A single cell organism would not have a soul. It's a cell, not a 'being'.
Only when a life is created, is a soul produced to represent that life.
Thank you again for your clarification, Bluering! Much appreciated.
Would you mind more clarification? I ask because I'm still not seeing the connection between your "inhuman" comment upthread and this further clarification on your part.
LMCs insist that the "person" exists at the moment of conception. They, of course, draw "the line" here in order to avoid paradoxes of ambiguity. However, your account thus far seems ripe for application of such paradoxes.
For example, if a single cell has no soul, then at the moment of conception a fertilized cell has no soul. If the cell divides (in the first step on its path toward becoming a full-blown "person" with a full-blown soul) does it then have a soul?
If you say "no, not yet," then one wonders how many cells it takes to achieve "soul status." If you say "yes, it is now multicelled," then one wonders why there is a sudden and qualitative distinction that occurs between one and "at least two" cells.
If you claim that somewhere between two and "many" cells the "soul status" is achieved, then you are solidly in paradox of ambiguity terrain, and any "resolution" of that paradox will be arbitrary (and hence, not really sustaining your "inhuman" accusation).
Furthermore, at first you seemed to conflate "alive" with "having a soul," but you most recently seem to distinguish between these statuses. But your present distinction still seems murky to me, because, as I say above, I'm not clear exactly WHAT features of an entity give it "soul status," and I'm confident that you don't think it is entirely a numerical (number of cells) metric!
I hope my line of questioning is clear. I'm just not sure what, on your view, gets a fetus any particular moral status and how that status is attained when the fertilized cell doesn't have it but somewhere along the development the fetus does have it.
In short, what are the morally-relevant features of a fetus that give it "soul status?"
Thank you again!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2014 - 10:17am PT
|
"So bookworm. What's your story? Were you unable to get pregnant? If you are male were you unable to get a woman pregnant?"
don't understand the relevance...so only women who are or have been pregnant are permitted an opinion on abortion? are you unable to have sex or were you absent the day they explained both male and female contributions are necessary for pregnancy? do you not understand that 50% of unborn babies are male? are you not aware the majority of abortions around the world kill female babies? why does your concern for women begin only post-partum?
biologically, scientifically, rationally life begins at conception...the soul is not relevant to the argument;i want to save the atheist unborn as much as the faithful unborn and give them all a chance to CHOOSE for themselves
if a woman wants to be pregnant, then she carries a baby (at whatever stage) and a miscarriage (i.e. the body naturally terminating the pregnancy) is tragic...if a woman does not want to be pregnant, then she carries a clump of cells/tissue (at whatever stage) and an abortion (i.e. another person intentionally and unnaturally terminating the pregnancy) is a "right"...please, explain, sully
"More significantly, why pose as an English teacher? You quote my Bible, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, out of context. Plus, you hold up the most anti-female dystopian classic to push a women's issue. Good thinking, maestra."
if you actually read shakespeare (rather than just mouthing the words) you would understand the context is appropriate...miranda comments on a group of men she sees for the first time, men we know to be corrupt--these are the same men who abandoned her father, with an infant daughter (oh, maybe a 3-year-old doesn't count as a human, either...), on an island, presumably, to die--her praise of these men is ironic (which, i'm sure, you recongnize since your "bible" is full of examples)
the key, which you miss (not surprisingly), is prospero's response...he recognizes there is nothing "new" about miranda's world, on or off the island; such corruption always has and always will exist and, most often, in beauteous form...he understands his life as duke (and his daughter's life) back in milan will still be fraught with peril
"I'm sure you agree that John the Savage is one crappy Christ figure. How was the brave new world any better after his suicide?"
honestly, it's just such comments that explain why i'm a teacher (and why my job is so often depressing)
of course, john is a failed christ figure...first, he's john NOT jesus; he's either the baptist or the apostle in need of the christ to teach him the truth...shakespeare is a great source for moral teaching, but the morality is incomprehensible without a strong biblical foundation; shakespeare and john's innate morality can take him only so far (like dante's guide; virgil--symbolically, human reason--can take us only as far as earthly paradise; only the love of god can take us to heaven)
the point is, sully, the world is not brave or new; huxley is simply illustrating his own world carried to the extreme (hence, the astute and contextually appropriate allusion)
the point is, sully, this world is NOT "better" after john's suicide; the world is worse because the last good chance the world had to redeem itself is dead, killed by the world he might have saved...sound familiar? that's actually from the real bible
when i started my career 20 years ago, the majority of my students (including a majority of jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, atheists, etc.) knew the story of jesus and its implications; they didn't believe it, but they understood it...sadly, the opposite is now true...i even have catholic students who don't understand the sacraments and the non-christians have no knowledge/appreciation of the bible at all...but they have an excuse--they're kids
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:58am PT
|
biologically, scientifically, rationally life begins at conception...
Nobody is arguing with you about this point.
THE point that you seem to be missing is that "life" is not the morally-relevant consideration in this debate, because mere "life" fails to explicate any morally-relevant distinction.
Based solely on your "life" statement, you MUST decry the needless slaughter of millions of innocent skin cells I cause whenever I scratch my arm.
But you do NOT decry this slaughter, as well you should not. So YOU recognize that "life" is not the morally-relevant metric here. Thus, you should quit retreating back to that point.
I'll ask you again: What IS the morally-relevant metric?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
|
I like madbolter more everyday.
The crux to me is the choice and legality issue.
Women have "had" and "created" abortions since almost forever. Abortions will continue to happen, whether they are legal or not.
I do not think women should be forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children.
I do not think women should be forced to have illegal, unsanitary and dangerous abortions.
I do not think women should be made into criminals for having illegal abortions.
Here's a thought Prospero, you don't want women to have abortions? Keep your f*#king dick in your pants.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 02:05pm PT
|
I'll ask you again: What IS the morally-relevant metric?
Man, it's almost as if you think morality is some sort of philosophical framework which seeks to increase happiness and mitigate suffering, based on objective truths about sentience, psychology, and the natural world.
But we all know morality is just doing what he bible says you should do.
Like if you strike a pregnant woman and cause her to have a miscarriage, then you should pay a fine to the husband for the loss of property. The problem is all these women are going around getting abortions and the husbands aren't getting their dues!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2014 - 04:50pm PT
|
"So worried about the un-born but can't be bothered to care for the living."
i do care about the living; i don't think the innocent living should be killed, either
"THE point that you seem to be missing is that "life" is not the morally-relevant consideration in this debate, because mere "life" fails to explicate any morally-relevant distinction."
my fault, i assumed everyone understood we're discussing HUMAN LIFE
if there is no argument about when life begins, then what "metric" do you use to determine how long after life begins it's acceptable/moral to terminate life? explain the moral distinction between 6 weeks, 16 weeks, 26 weeks, and 36 weeks...if you agree life begins at conception, explain the moral distinction between in utero and out
"Women have "had" and "created" abortions since almost forever. Abortions will continue to happen, whether they are legal or not."
by that reasoning, you believe we have a "right" to murder, too
"I do not think women should be forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children.
I do not think women should be forced to have illegal, unsanitary and dangerous abortions.
I do not think women should be made into criminals for having illegal abortions."
neither do i; the ONLY difference in our understanding of the issue is that i believe women should make these decisions BEFORE they have sex and not after
"Here's a thought Prospero, you don't want women to have abortions? Keep your f*#king dick in your pants."
EXACTLY! and women should keep their panties on, too
crazy me, i think people should be responsible for their actions; you don't want kids, don't have sex...we're humans, not animals; we can choose to have sex or not; we can comprehend the consequences of our actions; we can live our lives fully, which includes the painful (or inconvenient) as well as the joyful, or we can abdicate our dignity and subjugate ourselves entirely to our passions and hope for someone else to clean up our messes
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
Furthermore, at first you seemed to conflate "alive" with "having a soul," but you most recently seem to distinguish between these statuses. But your present distinction still seems murky to me, because, as I say above, I'm not clear exactly WHAT features of an entity give it "soul status," and I'm confident that you don't think it is entirely a numerical (number of cells) metric!
I hope my line of questioning is clear. I'm just not sure what, on your view, gets a fetus any particular moral status and how that status is attained when the fertilized cell doesn't have it but somewhere along the development the fetus does have it.
In short, what are the morally-relevant features of a fetus that give it "soul status?"
When a conception takes place, I believe a soul is created that strives to grow. It's quite the magical process. The moral status is derived from the potential of that initiated process. That will become a person. As such, it should be treated as one.
Just because it hasn't left the women, doesn't mean it should not have a moral value.
It's not a quantity of cells that matters, it's the conception.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 09:57pm PT
|
Abortions are awesome because humanity is a raging cancer. The religious fundamentalists in this thread can go eat poison, they are so stupid with their impotent rules.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 10:05pm PT
|
Meanwhile, do you really think we are the moral fuk ups now?
Aren't you the same guy who saw burning defective, bad livers on the same level as burning aborted babies?
EDIT: I'm curious of your thoughts on the human soul, Bruce? Just soul-music?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 10:46pm PT
|
Yes I do regard human life as sacred, more sacred than animal life. I assume it is a tribal loyalty as much as anything as all evidence shows many animal life forms have all the emotional and possibly spiritual qualities that we do. Either way, this sacred thing ain't as simple a rule book as it seems.
I'm think it's related to the degree of intelligence that I also have sympathy for animals. They can sense and anticipate pain and suffering because they have greater intelligence, larger souls, and more feeling. I'm speaking specifically of elephants and dolphins. Two of the smarter species in the animal world. They indeed have hearty souls.
Intelligence should not be a guage for sympathy though, it's just those species display their regret more than others.
Yes I do regard human life as sacred, more sacred than animal life. I assume it is a tribal loyalty as much as anything as all evidence shows many animal life forms have all the emotional and possibly spiritual qualities that we do. Either way, this sacred thing ain't as simple a rule book as it seems.
Yes I know it is to you but you can have it and have a good time. Just don't foist you ancient rules of ancient date on the rest of us. Neither yours nor our society is a theocracy.
I wonder if you'd tell a native American the same thing as we plowed over their burial-sites to make room for a project, or if the gov't seized their land in an eminent-domain fashion. Native American=sacred, Christian=go f*#k yerself.
Just curious, about the burning feotuses.... would you not be so disgusted if there was a sacred ceremony to send them off in dignity? Is that your hang up?
That would be a good step. I say a prayer for dead road-kill as I pass them. The little dead babies deserve the same. At least!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:42pm PT
|
We don't do farewell ceremonies for old livers, apparently not feotuses either, but at some point we decide they are people then it gets pretty sacred.
You obviously think a fetus is nothing more than dead tissue. Yeah, I understand that. Never had a soul, like a "liver".
Its a fair argument as to when but only you religious guys seem to want to determine it by magic. For some reason you also only focus on one interesting but unsubstantiated idea (the soul ) while ignoring completely the well substantiated realities of the unquestionably living moral beings already here.
So, your ticket to individual rights is making it out of the vagina? That's when we start to care?
Maybe the problem wouldn't be such a problem if pregnancy did not equal a spiral of poverty and state / church enforced spiritual dysfunction, like having Bookworm learing down at you from his pulpit.
Yeah, saving babies from death should only be a religious issue, not moral. If a mother CHOSE to execute her child after birth because she just waited a bit to long to make her CHOICE, would that be cool? She just was making her pro-choice decision afterall.
When is it o.k. to kill babies? Or too late?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2014 - 11:42am PT
|
Killing is done everyday, in unbelievably huge quantities.
Billions of small plants, trees, fish, and super cute mammals, all because we're so superior. Humans are "special" and God says in this book here that he made them all for us to dispose of as we see fit. Hold it, you say there's more than one set of holy books?
But wait, that's not all, we kill massive numbers of HUMANS everyday too. Our government, your government, other peoples governments are all doing it, for sometimes less than glorious reasons.
And then we have our sacred right to keep and bear arms, so we can whack each other for every conceivable reason.
Here's the truth. Legal, safe, sanitary abortion and a woman's right to choose is the LAW OF THE LAND. A decision argued by some incredibly smart people, and decided on by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States. You do believe in America don't you book?
Sorry book, but you don't get to call this one. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Keep your holy flippers off of women's right to choose.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2014 - 08:26pm PT
|
Thou art allowed sex only for God's holy procreation.
No wonder Ol Bookie is such a bitter coot.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 04:58am PT
|
Yup, Bruce, you've just NAILED what I cannot stand about my "fellow" Christians.
The pompous dogmatism, especially when it is neither theologically nor philosophically sound, but it is trotted out as GOSPEL, is just disgusting and is a mark of shame to the actual cause of Christ.
Bookie dances all around the questions without even seeing that he/she is really providing NO answers at all. He/she thinks that further CLAIMS constitute answers. He/she thinks that by "turning the tables" and asking his/her own questions, he/she can DODGE the fact that he/she has no answers.
And Bluering's "soul" bit is no more credible than me claiming that everything in the universe is doubling in size once each second. I can CLAIM it all I want; but there is not a SHRED of evidence to think the claim is true. Worse, it is equivalent to the claim that everything is tripling in size every second. Or quadrupling. NO evidence can distinguish between these claims, and there is NO reason to think that any of them are true. Such is Bluering's "soul" business. And he offers no good reasons to distinguish between HUMAN skin cells and HUMAN fertilized eggs. Both are HUMAN cells and are fully and genetically human.
People like this "just believe," and they just don't EVER stop to reassess how they CAME to believe what they believe. They just KNOW, but what they "know" is like my claims about doubling, tripling, etc.
THAT would be bad enough, as Clifford says, such beliefs held on the basis of NO evidence actually degrade all of society!
But when they try to ENFORCE their "morality" on others, they have crossed a line that, fortunately, THIS society disallows them to cross. When they become rabid and wholly dogmatic and try to LEGISLATE their version of "morality," they go FAR beyond the pale and should be SMACKED down with counter-legislation!
There is no reason (Biblically or philosophically) to believe that a fertilized human egg has a soul. There is NO reason to afford it any special status.
And the "potential" argument Bluering floats is entirely specious.
I have the potential to be a president of the United States; but I don't get afforded that status until I AM! Mere potential does not afford actual status, and that is true also in the moral realm.
The ONLY response that has been floated to that response to the "potential" argument is something like: "But in the normal, natural course of events, these 'potential' people usually become people."
FALSE, both empirically and by force of reason alone.
We literally do not know what the proportion is of fertilizations that result in live births compared to symptomless miscarriages. But we have evidence that the rate is very high!
"Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%." (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm); And it is impossible in principle to know the miscarriage rate among women who did not know they were pregnant. By definition, they did not know, so they did not know that they miscarried instead of having a normal period. So, it is likely that the actual miscarriage rate (and this is in modern, developed societies!) is likely 50% or more. A LOT of sex, and a LOT of fertilization is happening; and there are not THAT many live births.
It's pretty hard to float the "potential" argument when, even in a modern, healthy society, it's at best a CRAPSHOOT if any given pregnancy comes to term and results in a live birth! The empirical evidence just doesn't support the claim that "in most cases" or "in the normal course of events" pregnancies produce live human babies. In FACT, it's probably more like a 50/50 shot, or even worse. So, what IS this supposed "normal course of events" that supposedly grounds the "potential" argument?
Furthermore, even if the empirical evidence supported the claim about the "normal course of events," the fact remains that for any PARTICULAR fetus (that supposedly has 'gotten hold of a soul'), that PARTICULAR soul might not to see the light of day!
So, the "potential" argument suffers badly from the fallacy of accident. Even IF (which is NOT the case) "the normal course of events" did "typically" produce a live birth, there is NO reason to think that ANY PARTICULAR fetus is going to "follow the rule." So, we WAIT to see if any PARTICULAR fetus DOES "follow the rule," and we acknowledge the human rights of those that DO. And we do NOT acknowledge such rights for all of the POTENTIAL MISCARRIAGES that do NOT!
An early term "abortion" is nothing but actualizing the POTENTIAL of that particular fetus to miscarry. So, notice how the "potential" sword cuts both ways! Any given fetus has the potential BOTH to become a full-blown person AND to become a wasting pile of useless jelly.
So, the "potential" argument fails to explicate.
Finally, in Judith Jarvis Thompson's seminal book, The Realm of Rights, she offers absolutely DEVASTATING arguments that MAKE the case that even if a fetus HAS ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, that STILL does not get you an anti-abortion case! I particularly recommend her famous thought experiments regarding the "plugged in violinist" and the "seeds."
These arguments and thought experiments MAKE that case that a woman's ACTUAL rights must ALWAYS trump even the PRESUMED rights of the fetus. And that is giving the fetus its best case, when in point of fact, there are not good reasons to PRESUME that a fetus DOES have any rights.
So, to sum up:
* The "potential" argument is a dismal failure because it is not empirically supported, AND it is not reasonable for various reasons including that it fallacious and is a two-edged sword.
* There is no Biblical or philosophical evidence to sustain the idea that a fetus is a person or has a soul.
* Even IF a fetus were afforded full human rights, that STILL does not make a sound anti-abortion case.
Christians would overnight enjoy a LOT more intellectual credibility if they would publicly acknowledge what a ridiculous hobby-horse they have been riding on this subject, BACK OFF of it, and turn their attention to actually productive education, acts of charity and mercy, and engage in the ACTUAL cause of Christ. Imagine taking the money Christians have spent opposing abortion and spending it on education and acts of mercy.
Wow! What a difference!
I know that I'd feel that I was in better company.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 05:39am PT
|
Oh, I should make one other point while I'm on a roll.
Bookie suggests that for my arguments the line of "birth" is entirely arbitrary. He/she suggests that by my lights there is no particular reason to afford a newborn any human rights. And the idea is that it is obviously monstrous to kill off unwanted newborns; thus it is equally monstrous to kill off the unborn; the "line" being entirely arbitrary.
But the "line" of birth is FAR from arbitrary. In fact it is a very clear, bright line that perfectly correlates with Thompson's arguments about the often conflicting rights (presuming that fetuses have rights) between a woman and a fetus.
Here is the line: viability.
While the fetus is entirely, completely dependent upon the woman for its very existence, it is NOT an independent entity. It is literally a part of the woman.
However, at the point of viability (which modern medical practices keep pushing further and further back from the typical 9 months), the fetus CAN be considered an independent entity. It can be "detached" from the woman and still live and develop independently.
So there is nothing arbitrary about calling a non-viable fetus a part of a woman, giving her as much discretion over it as she has over any other part of her body. And there is nothing arbitrary about calling a viable fetus (or, more commonly, a born fetus) a "baby" and treating it as an independent entity.
Even that doesn't get you "soul" or anything of the kind. And "personhood" scales with development.
Already in this society we put a LOT of weight on the "potential" argument when it comes to BORN babies. They might not ever grow up to become full-blown persons. But we treat them as though they WILL. And these are certainly independent entities that have "beaten the odds" to become independent entities.
But the "potential" argument is put to its last trumps to get pushed further and further back into the development cycle of a fetus! By the time it is pushed back to the single fertilized cell, it has become entirely absurd, as I argued in my previous post.
Nope, there is a clear, bright line at viability; and we already put enough weight on the "potential" argument to grant full human rights to these independent entities at the point of birth (by whatever means they get "born").
When they are not even independent entities, we simply don't accept the "potential" argument. Instead, we rightly wait and see. Meanwhile, the WOMAN'S rights absolutely trump even the "potential" rights of a fetus.
Nothing arbitrary about it.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 09:54am PT
|
Here is the line: viability.
Bingo. Thou art KO'd book.
Some of us here in The United States believe strongly in a little thing called the separation of church and state. Just as strongly as you believe in your ideas book.
Any questions?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
|
People who complain about fornication and "sluts" are always the same people that can't get laid.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!