Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:57pm PT
|
current rates?
Current rates haven't changed much since since old rates, have they?
Only the amount that have been able to live
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:03pm PT
|
so what then of individual liberty? are you saying women must be compelled to give birth?
No. Jus that the survival of humans (mankind) should be up for debate amongst everyone!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:11pm PT
|
In an evolutionary sense reproductive behavior is well established, and includes the consideration, the assessment of that investment.
But animals only do it when their "horny" or in season. In a sense, the Christian moral of not having sex until married, thus "with a plan", goes against nature.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:31pm PT
|
Everything is soul-less, there is no God, and you're right about everything. Kill at will. Morality is not at all hinged on the existence of God or souls. You should try picking up a book or something on ethics. If your belief in God is the only thing keeping you from murdering your fellow humans, then you are by definition a psychopath.
It is obvious (at least to me) that this should not qualify as a human life
and that this SHOULD qualify as a human life..
Somewhere in that time it goes from a non-human to human. As is often the case, biology does not provide us with a clear dividing line. There is room for debate on when these rights of the individual should come into effect.
The soul however, is not something that has ever been scientifically tested. It is a religious concept which is taken on faith alone. So if you want to make the case that individual rights begin at conception, you need to do so without invoking a "soul"... at least if you believe that a 'separation of church and state' is something worth preserving.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:41pm PT
|
^^^^ Sure. So where, do you in the state, see life beginning?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
|
life begins at the first impure thought
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:16pm PT
|
^^^^
^^^^
The bluntness I can appreciate.
But the narrowness still confuses.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
|
^^^^ Sure. So where, do you in the state, see life beginning?
A few pages back, Madbolter made a convincing argument that the line should be drawn at viability of life outside the womb. In effect, you get individual rights when you begin your life as an individual.
Another way of looking at it would be to consider brain activity. From Wikipedia:
"Electrical brain activity is first detected between the 5th and 6th week of gestation, though this is still considered primitive neural activity rather than the beginning of conscious thought, something that develops much later in fetation. Synapses begin forming at 17 weeks, and at about week 28 begin to multiply at a rapid pace which continues until 3 to 4 months after birth"
If conservatives would focus their efforts on just limiting abortions to the first 10 weeks (little to no electrical activity), then everyone could actually take them seriously. (91% of abortions occur in the first trimester anyways, and most that don't are for extenuating circumstances). I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself, other than I find it ridiculous that a woman should be prevented from terminating an embryo which doesn't even have a functioning nervous system.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:40pm PT
|
Current rates haven't changed much since since old rates, have they?
Only the amount that have been able to live
the current rates have doubled the population in our life times... it's not a steady number of people, it's an exponentially growing number of people... and that isn't going to work out in the long run.
That's the thorny issue.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:33pm PT
|
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself, other than I find it ridiculous that a woman should be prevented from terminating an embryo which doesn't even have a functioning nervous system.
Well even if ur a Evolutionist, you can see there is a plan inplaceto give that embryo a nervous system! So as an Intelligent Design proponent, i can see a consciousness already planned. Thus in progress.
I'm willing to work on a time-line cut-off for which it would be illegal to abort. Along with an under age minor would need parental consent. And, if the abortion could have a negative effect to the mother. These would be my concern as a voter.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:51pm PT
|
^^^ yea socialism is prolly the best way to lead the sheeple
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 03:12pm PT
|
MadBolter1, I cannot offer you evidence of a soul. It's not a tangible thing. So, you win the argument. Everything is soul-less, there is no God, and you're right about everything. Kill at will.
That's a complete punt, and I'm not at all cowed by this thinly-veiled, actually in-your-face "capitulation."
I have not asked for "tangible" evidence! I've asked for ANY evidence, including (beyond empirical): rational or even Scriptural. ANYTHING at all.
Here, let me give you some clues. You could answer specific questions like these, just to give us an insight into your metaphysics:
1) Does a soul connect up with a body at the moment of human conception?
2) Does a soul connect up with the bodies of other species at the moment of their conception?
3) Does a soul's connection to a body get severed if the body is aborted?
4) What happens to a particular soul if its connection to a body is severed due to an abortion?
5) Are there, actually, "particular" souls, or is there some undifferentiated "soul stuff" that attaches to bodies and THEN becomes differentiated?
6) Are souls eternal, or do they spring into existence by some means when they get attached to bodies?
I could ask many more questions like these, but let's start with these, as even the answers to these will give us some initial insight into what you MEAN by a "soul."
Believe me, I am not opposed to the very notion of a soul. I am not a "naturalist" about metaphysics. I just expect a high level of rigor (and basic internal consistency) in any such theories, particularly when they are employed to justify legislation.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 03:34pm PT
|
Hence, all these abortion haters are making God very mad, he told me so.
We are usually vehemently opposed to each other, Dr. F, so this is a rare opportunity to be on the same page about something.
I'll go you one better....
God is actually VERY MAD at these confused, pro-life "Christians," because most of them believe that these aborted babies jet straight to Heaven when they are aborted! God WANTS as many innocent souls in Heaven as He can possibly get (the Bible is clear about this), so He WANTS as much aborted conception to happen here on Earth as possible. If we could "factory farm" these souls straight into Heaven, that would be so much the better!
Now, I know that the foregoing paragraph is deeply offensive to many, but this paragraph actually reflects a SERIOUS internal consistency in the theology of most Christians. It is a serious enough problem that big guns like John Piper and R.C. Sproul devote chapters (plural) in books to resolving the (at least) paradox inherent in the mainstream theology!
And they do, to be frank, a PISS-POOR job of it!
They make God out to be some grand consequentialist, but then they cannot really wiggle out of the implications of their view. Their BEST response amounts to the lame claim: "Well, God ensures that these babies end up in Heaven where they ought to be, but He still holds the murderers responsible for their murders."
They never account for WHY abortion supposedly is murder, and they never account for why life is so sacred that, even when God Himself actually ensures its continuity (i.e.: no REAL death), this "murder" has real moral weight.
Conjoin a belief in immortal souls with the idea that the innocent jet straight to Heaven, and you have little left to even start to make a case for what "murder" actually IS. After all, if a being cannot REALLY die, then what IS a "murder?" It is nothing more than the termination of a physical body. But THAT turns out to be irrelevant, as we terminate "physical bodies" all the time that do not count as "murders."
When I scratch my arm and terminate the lives of millions of cells, I am told that this is not "murder" because these cells never had souls. But on Piper's and Sproul's view, so what? Souls don't NEED bodies to have everlasting life, and their connection with a body is, at best, a VERY transient and even seemingly pointless one. The body comes; the body goes; the soul goes on.
So, I kill a body that happened to be connected to a soul. Or I kill a body that didn't happen to be connected to a soul. So what? There is no practical difference and no genuine KILLING. The body is essentially (and I use that as a technical term) irrelevant! The SOUL is what has eternal life, and IT cannot be "murdered" by any means.
A soul never gets connected with a body, or a soul has its connection terminated "early" (whatever that means), and the net effect is IDENTICAL. You are still left with a soul that has everlasting life.
And God Himself ensures that He will literally "sort 'em out" to get the souls shuffled into the right places. So, FAR better to ensure that souls remain "innocent" (whatever that means) by GETTING them straight into Heaven asap, before they can be sullied by the "lusts of the flesh" that invariably occur almost immediately in the body.
No harm; no foul!
So, mainstream Christianity has a HARD row to hoe to explain exactly how its metaphysics even allow for "murder" in the morally-relevant sense at all, much more so the "murder" of the unborn.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 09:09pm PT
|
That's a complete punt, and I'm not at all cowed by this thinly-veiled, actually in-your-face "capitulation."
I have not asked for "tangible" evidence! I've asked for ANY evidence, including (beyond empirical): rational or even Scriptural. ANYTHING at all.
I gave you my thoughts. What else do you want? I laid it out pretty well, but you chose to dismiss it. I chose to disagree with you. Why go on?
Here, let me give you some clues. You could answer specific questions like these, just to give us an insight into your metaphysics:
1) Does a soul connect up with a body at the moment of human conception?
Yes.
2) Does a soul connect up with the bodies of other species at the moment of their conception?
Yes
3) Does a soul's connection to a body get severed if the body is aborted?
Yes, it has died. Where it goes remains to be seen.
4) What happens to a particular soul if its connection to a body is severed due to an abortion?
Prolly saved due to the innocence. But I don't run the place.
5) Are there, actually, "particular" souls, or is there some undifferentiated "soul stuff" that attaches to bodies and THEN becomes differentiated? 6)
I don't know this answer.
Are souls eternal, or do they spring into existence by some means when they get attached to bodies?
Both.
I could ask many more questions like these, but let's start with these, as even the answers to these will give us some initial insight into what you MEAN by a "soul."
Believe me, I am not opposed to the very notion of a soul. I am not a "naturalist" about metaphysics. I just expect a high level of rigor (and basic internal consistency) in any such theories, particularly when they are employed to justify legislation.
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
|
Blackness beyond this awareness. Nothing more. No eternal award, other than the recycling of your corporeal body via natural composition, etc. Like anaesthesia, except endless
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
|
Have you ever wondered why you are so un persuasive Bluey?
Ever notice I don't seem to care? I'm not trying to change your mind. Just explaining why I think you're wrong.
If that changes minds, fine. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, I'm just explaining mine.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 10:06pm PT
|
MadBolter1 asked for my opinions, and I offered my thoughts.
Take that as you will.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 12:14am PT
|
I appreciate you not backing down, Bluering. You show at least guts. Of course you know that what you've offered are opinions and not explanations. But at least I can better understand your fervency about the subject.
Honestly, I'm saddened that you had no actual explanations to offer; and I don't feel good about continuing to just poke holes. So, rather than to "win," as you say, I prefer to withdraw from the discussion with you.
If bookie can do better, well, perhaps he/she will give it a shot.
Meanwhile, I DO hope you have a sense of why public policy should not be based upon a perspective that by your own admission is metaphysically inexplicable. Of course you'll vote your mind and conscience, and more power to you. I continue to hope that discussions like this will even more settle the minds of voters as to why government has no place in deciding a woman's rights in her own body.
Thank you for engaging.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 12:59am PT
|
No he asked for your explanation, not opinion.
Any 'explanation' on the souls of people has got to be opinion, it cannot be proven. But I gave my take on it.
As for the "Serb Nazis", do some research on the origins and nature of the "ethnic" Albanians. They were jihadist Muslims from all over the region.
Look at that area today. Dagestan, Chechnya, etc...It was the opening shots of the current war on radical Islam. As in Libya, we sided with the wrong side.
EDIT: Meanwhile, I DO hope you have a sense of why public policy should not be based upon a perspective that by your own admission is metaphysically inexplicable. Of course you'll vote your mind and conscience, and more power to you. I continue to hope that discussions like this will even more settle the minds of voters as to why government has no place in deciding a woman's rights in her own body.
Don't lecture me on the rights of a woman, I never mentioned anything of the sort. I never mentioned denying a woman any 'rights'. I was simply arguing that a fetus is more than 'medical waste', that can be burned for fuel like a bad liver or a cancer riddled organ.
Maybe human life that is destroyed should be treated with some respect.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 02:02am PT
|
My data on Kosovo did not come from PatDollard.com, it was well established before I ever met him.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!