Is America great?

[Sancocho]

I've made my case on several other threads, but I can give you the summary. Like many Christians in the middle ages, I don't consider an early foetus to be sufficiently developed to contain a personality (or soul, for Christians). Without a personality it is not a person (= human being). So it does not have the moral status of an extant person. Considering a person to have rights therefore does not necessarily extend that protection to the foetus, unless it can be shown that it might have such a personality that qualifies it as a person.

Your turn.

From the scientific viewpoint there is nothing in science that can substantiate a unique human being is not created at conception.

From an Orthodox Christian theological viewpoint there is nothing that can substantiate a person is not given a soul at conception.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

There is no scientific validity for this claim. Please post anything that you believe supports this nonetheless.

Its not a scientific question. G.C. indicated that the determination for the Church has to do with the soul, and a body with a soul show's certain feature's that a body without a soul does not, and, being in the womb, 1 of the key feature's --breath --is missing. But 1 of the other key feature's of a body inhabited with a soul is the heartbeat. Fetuses' have heartbeat's starting around two-to-three week's after conception.


Daniel

 

[Sancocho]

Its not a scientific question. G.C. indicated that the determination for the Church has to do with the soul, and a body with a soul show's certain feature's that a body without a soul does not, and, being in the womb, 1 of the key feature's --breath --is missing. But 1 of the other key feature's of a body inhabited with a soul is the heartbeat. Fetuses' have heartbeat's starting around two-to-three week's after conception.


Daniel

It is a scientific and theological issue.

Regarding your theological claim that a person has no soul until their heart beats is completely unsubstantiated from a biblical point of view.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

It is a scientific and theological issue...

Theology has no place in the administration of government based on individual human right's. So if science cannot definitively declare fetuses' to be people with right's, then we're going to have to fight abortion some other way than through "the sword." Romans 13:4 KJV

...Regarding your theological claim that a person has no soul until their heart beats is completely unsubstantiated from a biblical point of view.

What about after there heart stop's? Does a corpse have a soul? Of course not. So how can we be sure that fetuses' without heartbeat's are soul's?


Daniel

 

[gcthomas]

It is a scientific and theological issue.

Science says nothing about value judgements such as this. You have to decide on what are the determining factors that trigger the awarding of personhood to an organism.

I have chosen neurological capacity for a personality. It seems to have a rational basis on the avoidance of suffering and pain, for example. It also opens the way to treat other intelligent species humanely workout a patchwork of ad hoc rules.

Deciding that a single fertilised cell is a person means you have to hunt for a property that the cell and a grown person share, and you are left with dna.

But that gives you awkward edge cases. Virgin birth, for example, would would not produce different dna, identical twins would be treated as the same person. A great ape, no matter how much it can grieve or suffer, would be exuded and gain no protection of its person.

 

[noguru]

Well I'm glad you've never been punched in the face. For those of us who have had this displeasure let's say it does provoke an "emotion". Now you know how I feel when a child is killed and a fellow Christian minimizes the importance.

BTW, no need to get emotional and call anyone names. :wave:

:rotfl:

I have been punched in the face, kicked, taken down... I have studied martial arts for a long time. And one of the first things they teach you is to get control of your emotions, rather than let your emotions control you. Yes, I have emotions. They flow freely from me. I let them flow like the tide, rather than try to subdue them and have them reek havoc on my internal well being. None of that means I won't call a spade a spade, or an idiot and idiot when a person behaves as such.

Hey idiot, where have I minimized the importance of abortion? I trust you can show me that, rather than continue with your empty bluster and another appeal to the emotion of guilt?

 

[Daniel1611]

:rotfl:

I have been punched in the face, kicked, taken down... I have studied martial arts for a long time. And one of the first things they teach you is to get control of your emotions, rather than let your emotions control you. Yes, I have emotions. They flow freely from me. I let them flow like the tide, rather than try to subdue them and have them reek havoc on my internal well being. None of that means I won't call a spade a spade, or an idiot and idiot when a person behaves as such.

What martial art did you study? I practiced Tang Soo Do for years under some great teachers. Very beneficial

 

[Sancocho]

Theology has no place in the administration of government based on individual human right's. So if science cannot definitively declare fetuses' to be people with right's, then we're going to have to fight abortion some other way than through "the sword." Romans 13:4 KJV

We are not talking theology when we are discussing recognition of a human being based on the scientific definition, try to grasp that.

What about after there heart stop's? Does a corpse have a soul? Of course not. So how can we be sure that fetuses' without heartbeat's are soul's?

Are we now discussing theology???? Make up your mind please.

From a theological standpoint there is no basis for claiming a human being does not have a soul at conception.

 

[Sancocho]

Science says nothing about value judgements such as this. You have to decide on what are the determining factors that trigger the awarding of personhood to an organism.

I have chosen neurological capacity for a personality. It seems to have a rational basis on the avoidance of suffering and pain, for example. It also opens the way to treat other intelligent species humanely workout a patchwork of ad hoc rules.

Deciding that a single fertilised cell is a person means you have to hunt for a property that the cell and a grown person share, and you are left with dna.

But that gives you awkward edge cases. Virgin birth, for example, would would not produce different dna, identical twins would be treated as the same person. A great ape, no matter how much it can grieve or suffer, would be exuded and gain no protection of its person.

Science establishes a human being is created at conception, this is not up for debate nor is this a theological debate.

Also, most laws do not speak of a soul regarding rights that are imparted to human being so this defaults to the scientific determination of when human life begins. This is not a theological debate either.

 

[Sancocho]

:rotfl:

I have been punched in the face, kicked, taken down... I have studied martial arts for a long time. And one of the first things they teach you is to get control of your emotions, rather than let your emotions control you. Yes, I have emotions. They flow freely from me. I let them flow like the tide, rather than try to subdue them and have them reek havoc on my internal well being. None of that means I won't call a spade a spade, or an idiot and idiot when a person behaves as such.

Hey idiot, where have I minimized the importance of abortion? I trust you can show me that, rather than continue with your empty bluster and another appeal to the emotion of guilt?

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you claim the posting of an aborted child was overly emotional and excessive or something along those lines??

If not please explain your position regarding the posting of pictures of the reality that is the murder of children.

 

[noguru]

What martial art did you study? I practiced Tang Soo Do for years under some great teachers. Very beneficial

Tae kwon do, judo, aikido, t'ai chi... as well as much of the introspective and philosophical ideas behind Eastern martial arts practices (Taosim, Confuciansim, Samurai vs Ninja goals, eastern philosophies on war from Asia minor and major...).

You studied just the bodily movements or the philosophy behind it as well?

Because most westerners are only exposed to the ideas enough to do the motions, not to actually practice the principles.

 

[noguru]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you claim the posting of an aborted child was overly emotional and excessive or something along those lines??

If not please explain your position regarding the posting of pictures of the reality that is the murder of children.

You are wrong. I said that "Posting such (since all know what an aborted fetus looks like and many are exposed to the emotional results on a first hand basis) pictures here is a blatant attempt to override reason with an excessively strong appeal to emotion". I have repeated that several times. This is not undermining the emotional nature of the practice. It is a comment on the strategy behind posting the pic here. A point which you have yet to address, yet keep trying to divert attention from by focusing on what I did not post.

I also included the rationale (whether you agree or not - and that can be further debated - though I do not think you will) of people who feel that abortion is acceptable, to varying degrees for various people. You will never discuss this. You have already made your mind up on this issue by making it more black and white than it is to some people, and are trying to cover for that by signing on to the excessive appeal to emotion as a diversionary tactic.

Have I made myself clear, oh very observant one?

 

[Daniel1611]

Tae kwon do, judo, aikido, t'ai chi... as well as much of the introspective and philosophical ideas behind Eastern martial arts practices (Taosim, Confuciansim, Samurai vs Ninja goals, eastern philosophies on war from Asia minor and major...).

You studied just the bodily movements or the philosophy behind it as well?

Because most westerners are only exposed to the ideas enough to do the motions, not to actually practice the principles.

That's pretty cool. We were taught the whole philosophy. C.S. Kim was the top guy, one of the highest ranked men in Tang Soo do on earth. He is from Korea and used to train American millitary over there. The guys I learned from on a regular basis were the highest legitimately ranked white person in the world and his son. They did a thorough job. These three guys were incredible to observe and learn from. Not to sidetrack the thread.

 

[noguru]

That's pretty cool. We were taught the whole philosophy. C.S. Kim was the top guy, one of the highest ranked men in Tang Soo do on earth. He is from Korea and used to train American millitary over there. The guys I learned from on a regular basis were the highest legitimately ranked white person in the world and his son. They did a thorough job. These three guys were incredible to observe and learn from. Not to sidetrack the thread.

Not to derail the thread too much further, but can you please tell me about one of the philosophical principles you learned in your training?

 

[noguru]

Science establishes a human being is created at conception, this is not up for debate nor is this a theological debate.

Also, most laws do not speak of a soul regarding rights that are imparted to human being so this defaults to the scientific determination of when human life begins. This is not a theological debate either.

Your misrepresentation here has already been addressed. Yet your proclamation that "It is not debatable" is a demonstration that you have not thoroughly analyzed this subject area, nor do you seem emotionally equipped to do so. And then you wonder why you are not seen as "reasonable" and "stable".

 

[quip]

Science establishes a human being is created at conception...

Though it's not within the purview of science in designating personhood. Science, in terms of conception, may only point us to the orgins of a human organism. You consider yourself a person, yes? How many times in the last year have you referred to yourself as merely an organism?

 

[gcthomas]

Science establishes a human being is created at conception, this is not up for debate nor is this a theological debate.

No, as has been said before. You use the term human being to claim an equivalence with extand human persons, and if that is what you are claiming for a foetus then you are scientifically wrong. A foetus cannot be a person with any common definition of the term.

Persons are granted protection for a variety of rational ethical reasons, to do with autonomy, consciousness, potential for pain or feelings of loss, etc.

What is is about the foetus that you think deserves protection? I did ask for your justifications without referring to the rights of whatever group you want to make them a member of. What is it intrinsically about a foetus that demands protection?

 

[Sancocho]

You are wrong. I said that "Posting such (since all know what an aborted fetus looks like and many are exposed to the emotional results on a first hand basis) pictures here is a blatant attempt to override reason with an excessively strong appeal to emotion". I have repeated that several times. This is not undermining the emotional nature of the practice. It is a comment on the strategy behind posting the pic here. A point which you have yet to address, yet keep trying to divert attention from by focusing on what I did not post.

I also included the rationale (whether you agree or not - and that can be further debated - though I do not think you will) of people who feel that abortion is acceptable, to varying degrees for various people. You will never discuss this. You have already made your mind up on this issue by making it more black and white than it is to some people, and are trying to cover for that by signing on to the excessive appeal to emotion as a diversionary tactic.

Have I made myself clear, oh very observant one?

Look buddy you are using the abortionists argument. A spade is a spade. Abortionists trick millions of women into killing their children because they believe it is just "tissue". Pictures like the one were posted are therefore relevant and important to those of us who are trying to save lives. I have no time for lipstick on frogs. Lead, follow or get out of my way.

 

[Sancocho]

Your misrepresentation here has already been addressed. Yet your proclamation that "It is not debatable" is a demonstration that you have not thoroughly analyzed this subject area, nor do you seem emotionally equipped to do so. And then you wonder why you are not seen as "reasonable" and "stable".

You are confused. A human life is created at conception and this is a scientific fact.

If you want to discuss the morality of murder get your bible and let's do it.

 

[Sancocho]

Though it's not within the purview of science in designating personhood. Science, in terms of conception, may only point us to the orgins of a human organism. You consider yourself a person, yes? How many times in the last year have you referred to yourself as merely an organism?

I will remind you that human laws revolve around giving rights to human beings and has nothing to do with "personhood".