the truth about abortion

[The Real McCoy]

Actually the third question wasn't really important at all. My attack is actually going to come from the first question, so here goes. This is mainly... attacking the belief that God is the biggest abortionist ever. Obviously (because God knows everything), God knows which eggs are to develop into human beings and which eggs are going to be expelled from the female body. So... I would argue that God wouldn't give souls to the eggs that aren't going to develop into babies and would give souls to the eggs that are. Even if the soul isn't in the embryo yet, terminating the embryo before it has a chance to become a child of God is against God's plan, and destroying a potential is therefore immoral--just like how animals don't necessarily have souls (you may believe it you may not, I don't), but you should still treat them with respect because God created them.

To answer your third response, I'd like to believe that forms of life are more important than emotions. Also, any woman who is thinking about getting an abortion because it threatens her life is a greedy wench who shouldn't be having children in the first place.

P.S. I haven't stopped beating my wife.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
Hmm... I think that someone religiously inclined would have to answer that people have souls... whereas animals do not. Which is where the usual crossroad (abortionists and anti-abortionists) comes into play--when do humans recieve their souls?

Personally, I believe that the only thing that distinguishes us from our animal counterparts is our physical appearance and cognitive power. The main reason that I am against abortion is because it doesn't give the embryo a fair chance to have a say--which is the same reason why the mentally handicapped and animals should not be picked on. That's my spin on it... now I have a challenge for you.

Define justice to be universally accurate.
Then explain why terminating a life (though unborn) serves justice.

I really have no strong opinions on the abortion issue other than the fact that it isn't the same as murder as many Christians believe. The reason I'm "pro-choice" is because I don't believe the government should interfere with abortions. Even if the government were to ban all abortions, it certainly wouldn't stop women from terminating their pregnancies ("back alley" abortions, self inflicted termination, etc.)

I really can't say whether abortion is wrong or not but I can say this: it sure as **** isn't the same as murder like many Christians believe. I'm really not sure where they got this idea anyway. I'm no Bible guru but to the best of my knowledge, the only part of the Bible that addresses this is in Exodus (not sure of the chapter or verse) where a law states that if a man strikes a woman causing a miscarriage then he is to pay a fine but if the woman is killed then the man shall be put to death.

 

[livefree]

Of course not, that would go against God's plan of having stable monogomous relationships.
You should first have a stable relationship, get married, then have children (or not in this case).

Hail, Oh Great Brutus, spokesman on Earth for God Almighty and revealer of God's Divine Plan For All Beings and Appropriate Behaviors. I would not have dared to dispute you if I had but known that you were The One.

Seriously, dude, get over yourself, lose the arrogance, and stop trying to 'win' debates by using your supposedly superior intimate knowledge of "God's Plan" to score your illusory little points that don't actually prove anything. In your first post, you wanted me to answer some questions, so I did, but since then you have ignored all of my questions. Now you are complaining that no one answers your specious, circularly reasoned questions. Ha. Answer these questions first and I'll pay you some attention.

Without invoking Catholic/Fundamentalist dogma about souls entering the fertilized eggs right after the sperm cells enter, and then those souls being somehow 'lost' if those cell clusters don't come to term, just what is your reason, as a 'pro-lifer', for opposing the deliberate termination of one potential vehicle for a human life, especially when so many of these small cell clusters are flushed out quite naturally by the human body? I'll say it again: no one is home yet in an unborn fetus so no one is "murdered" or "lost" when one is aborted.

Why should a full grown human person, a woman, with a life, a mind and emotions, who has been raped, be punished with the added pain of being forced to combine her genetic material with the sperm of some perverted animal and then be forced to nurture within her body for 9 months, at some risk to her health, this unwanted and unchosen zygote, which isn't a person with a life or a mind or emotions? Has she no rights to her own eggs and no right to choose with whom to have children? Why exactly should the rights of a clump of cells the size of a fingernail with no nervous system, no brain, no mind, and no experiences, trump the rights of a real person, particularly one who has been deeply abused and injured by one of the most vile personal violations that humans can commit??? Answer those questions and we can talk some more.

Tell me this. Why is it that those who label themselves 'pro-life' seemingly have so much concern for the lives of the 'unborn' but then turn around and show no concern at all for the 30,000 actual children who painfully starve to death each and every day of the year on our planet Earth?

 

[Brutus]

To Brutus:
I've been away from the 'Net for a couple days. Regarding your references to souls in Messages #15 and #16 of this Thread, I strongly recommend you go back and read Message #2. It does NOT make sense to think that God puts souls into zygotes, and may not make sense for God to put souls into any fetus younger than 6 months. Regarding your opinions about "potential" in Messages #15, #16, #21, and repeated in #24, you should SERIOUSLY think again. IF potentials MUST be fulfilled, then what of your own potential to fall down a staircase and break your neck? Regarding your reference to "God's Plan" in Message #23, HOW DO YOU KNOW that monogamous relationships are God's Plan? Weren't the Hebrews God's Chosen People, who routinely practiced polygamy? Did you know that the Jews continued practicing polygamy up until approximately 1000AD, and then they instituted a thousand-year ban (in order to get along better with the persecuting Christians) which recently expired? And don't forget the Muslims, who also are allowed to be polygamous.

Here's something I originally posted elsewhere, regarding beliefs (I recommend you choose yours carefully!):

Christians who are pro-choice may simply not believe everything they are told by the preachers.
They have been told that God gave them a brain to use, to analyze their experiences, and to sort out the wheat from the chaff. From inside their own heads they can see that they DO have minds that can analyze experiences, and decide what was good and sensible and what wasn't.
So some Christians are told about the Earth being Created a few thousand years ago, and laugh in the preachers' faces. Ditto with respect to the Flood. And so on. To believe that God planted all that evidence for Evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, Life, and humanity -- and directly Created the lot in six Acts -- that is to believe that God is a liar, see? Not to mention wimpy, if six Acts were needed when a really powerful God could have done it in one. So, better to belive that only one Act was needed, setting off the Big Bang, and that God, being omniscient, KNEW that humanity would be an inevitable consequence of the evolutionary laws built into the resulting Universe. Simple and logical, and reason enough to laugh at the preachers!

Thanks for the tip at the end, but I'm an athiest.
"It does NOT make sense to think that God puts souls into zygotes, and may not make sense for God to put souls into any fetus younger than 6 months."
I don't know where you got that from. I guess it must be knowledge that you assumed, perhaps incorrectly. Anyway... I argue that it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the zygote has a soul or not, it is a living creature of God, and should be respected.

Also, as for that potential business, I'm not sure that I used the right word. I meant potential soul... as in it has the potential to become a child of God. In which case, if I fall down the stairs and break my neck I already have a soul, so that arguement is irrelevant.

To adress your last point, I thought it was clear that we were arguing about the problem from a Christian standpoint (which is the religion you practice, I think, correct me if I am wrong), and a monogomous relationship is a Christian value.

oh and P.S. moron: I'M AN ATHIEST, get it through your god damned thick skull.

 

[Brutus]

Hail, Oh Great Brutus, spokesman on Earth for God Almighty and revealer of God's Divine Plan For All Beings and Appropriate Behaviors. I would not have dared to dispute you if I had but known that you were The One.

Seriously, dude, get over yourself, lose the arrogance, and stop trying to 'win' debates by using your supposedly superior intimate knowledge of "God's Plan" to score your illusory little points that don't actually prove anything. In your first post, you wanted me to answer some questions, so I did, but since then you have ignored all of my questions. Now you are complaining that no one answers your specious, circularly reasoned questions. Ha. Answer these questions first and I'll pay you some attention.

I wasn't using my superior intimate knowledge of God's plan. I thought that we were arguing on the basis of Christianity, and I was mistaken (apparently).

Anyway, on to answer your questions. And I didn't have any cyclical "questions" for anyone to answer... they were arguements for you to argue. Did you read any of them, or do you just ignore them, throw as many insults as you can at me, and believe whatever you want to believe?

"Without invoking Catholic/Fundamentalist dogma about souls entering the fertilized eggs right after the sperm cells enter, and then those souls being somehow 'lost' if those cell clusters don't come to term, just what is your reason, as a 'pro-lifer', for opposing the deliberate termination of one potential vehicle for a human life, especially when so many of these small cell clusters are flushed out quite naturally by the human body? I'll say it again: no one is home yet in an unborn fetus so no one is "murdered" or "lost" when one is aborted."
Mainly because it is unfair to the potential vehicle for human life. It is unquestionably life, and no amount of emotion (that is, that the female doesn't want it because XXXXX) should end life.
Again, I'd say that these cells have the potential to have a soul, and killing these cells, is killing a potential soul.

"Why should a full grown human person, a woman, with a life, a mind and emotions, who has been raped, be punished with the added pain of being forced to combine her genetic material with the sperm of some perverted animal and then be forced to nurture within her body for 9 months, at some risk to her health, this unwanted and unchosen zygote, which isn't a person with a life or a mind or emotions? Has she no rights to her own eggs and no right to choose with whom to have children? Why exactly should the rights of a clump of cells the size of a fingernail with no nervous system, no brain, no mind, and no experiences, trump the rights of a real person, particularly one who has been deeply abused and injured by one of the most vile personal violations that humans can commit??? Answer those questions and we can talk some more."

Ha... trying to argue that the right to choose is greater than the right to life? Doesn't make much sense to me. Follow my logic. I own a dog (which has no soul), should my right to choose if it lives or dies trump its right to live? I'd hope not. Rape is a special case... but I believe that life should always be placed above emotion.

"Tell me this. Why is it that those who label themselves 'pro-life' seemingly have so much concern for the lives of the 'unborn' but then turn around and show no concern at all for the 30,000 actual children who painfully starve to death each and every day of the year on our planet Earth?"

Hmmm... interesting, since when don't I care about the 30,000 children who are starving to death each day?

 

[Brutus]

Hail, Oh Great Brutus, spokesman on Earth for God Almighty and revealer of God's Divine Plan For All Beings and Appropriate Behaviors. I would not have dared to dispute you if I had but known that you were The One.

Seriously, dude, get over yourself, lose the arrogance, and stop trying to 'win' debates by using your supposedly superior intimate knowledge of "God's Plan" to score your illusory little points that don't actually prove anything. In your first post, you wanted me to answer some questions, so I did, but since then you have ignored all of my questions. Now you are complaining that no one answers your specious, circularly reasoned questions. Ha. Answer these questions first and I'll pay you some attention.

Actually, if you would get out of your bubble, you would've realized that I did answer all of your questions to the best of my ability. Also, I'd like to know how this is cyclic reasoning (you never tried to answer any of my points, you simply said "it's invalid because i said so," who's really being condescending here?):
"This is mainly... attacking the belief that God is the biggest abortionist ever. Obviously (because God knows everything), God knows which eggs are to develop into human beings and which eggs are going to be expelled from the female body. So... I would argue that God wouldn't give souls to the eggs that aren't going to develop into babies and would give souls to the eggs that are. Even if the soul isn't in the embryo yet, terminating the embryo before it has a chance to become a child of God is against God's plan, and destroying a potential is therefore immoral--just like how animals don't necessarily have souls (you may believe it you may not, I don't), but you should still treat them with respect because God created them."

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "Thanks for the tip at the end, but I'm an athiest."

I did not see this indicated in any of your prior posts.


Brutus quoted: "It does NOT make sense to think that God puts souls into zygotes, and may not make sense for God to put souls into any fetus younger than 6 months."

--and wrote: "I don't know where you got that from. I guess it must be knowledge that you assumed, perhaps incorrectly."

The logic is explained in Message #2. If you can't scroll to see it on this Web page, then the previous-page-selector at the upper right will help you find it.


Brutus wrote: "Anyway... I argue that it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the zygote has a soul or not, it is a living creature of God, and should be respected."

THAT IS HYPOCRISY. You cannot claim to be an athiest and then use religion-based arguments regarding respect-of-life. (Perhaps you meant "agnositc" instead of "athiest"?) Also, what of life-forms like cockroaches and rats and fleas and lice and black-plague bacteria? You cannot show any favoritism if you claim all life must be respected (You cannot eat much, either, since almost every edible thing except fruits you obtain by killing something else, even if only the dormant life of a corn-kernel/seed.)


Brutus wrote: "Also, as for that potential business, I'm not sure that I used the right word. I meant potential soul... as in it has the potential to become a child of God. In which case, if I fall down the stairs and break my neck I already have a soul, so that arguement is irrelevant."

You missed the point. Because you do NOT have to fulfill the potential of falling down stairs and breaking your neck, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER POTENTIAL **HAVE** TO BE FULFILLED. You have the potential to commit suicide, the potential to burn your house down, the potential to assault a police officer, the potential to drive a car through a red light, and so on. NONE of them MUST happen. And neither must any other potential thing happen, either.


Brutus wrote: "To adress your last point, I thought it was clear that we were arguing about the problem from a Christian standpoint (which is the religion you practice, I think, correct me if I am wrong), and a monogomous relationship is a Christian value."

Nice try, but no cigar. I do not subscribe to many Christian beliefs, because I have reason to think most of them are nonsense (as indicated in Messages #2 and #25). Some MAY not be nonsense. God may exist, for example. This does NOT automatically mean that ANYTHING ever claimed to be true of God is actually true. HUMANS wrote the Bible, not God, and human self-interest is very obviously present in there. Stuff about monogamy is just preachers' say-so. If God exists, it doesn't even mean any iota of the Universe was Created. So far as we know, both could have happened independently of each other. SO: I use logic to poke holes in religion-based claims relevant to abortion. YOU have absolutely no business claiming athiesm, the belief that God is nonexistent, and then also SUPPORTING religion-blased claims relevant to abortion. An athiest must use irreligious arguments against abortion, or else be branded a hypocrite.

 

[Brutus]

I did not see this indicated in any of your prior posts.

Sorry for my outburst, I thought I had put that I am an athiest, but you are correct.

Brutus quoted: "It does NOT make sense to think that God puts souls into zygotes, and may not make sense for God to put souls into any fetus younger than 6 months."


--and wrote: "I don't know where you got that from. I guess it must be knowledge that you assumed, perhaps incorrectly."

The logic is explained in Message #2. If you can't scroll to see it on this Web page, then the previous-page-selector at the upper right will help you find it.

Your logic is explained in Message #2, but I don't see how you can conclude that 6 months is the ABSOLUTE minimum amount of time before a soul can enter an embryo. Yes, sex is a completely physical process, but isn’t the development of a fetus and the birth of a child also completely physical? I’m not sure if that argument is valid. As for saying that putting a soul into an embryo at an early stage is like forcing it into a sensory deprivation chamber I would have to disagree. You’re assuming that having a soul gives you consciousness (or the power to choose and react above basic animal instincts), which is incorrect. How much do you remember from when you were one year old? How many moral decisions did you make when you were one year old?

Brutus wrote: "Anyway... I argue that it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the zygote has a soul or not, it is a living creature of God, and should be respected."

THAT IS HYPOCRISY. You cannot claim to be an athiest and then use religion-based arguments regarding respect-of-life. (Perhaps you meant "agnositc" instead of "athiest"?) Also, what of life-forms like cockroaches and rats and fleas and lice and black-plague bacteria? You cannot show any favoritism if you claim all life must be respected (You cannot eat much, either, since almost every edible thing except fruits you obtain by killing something else, even if only the dormant life of a corn-kernel/seed.)

Again, I’m trying to convince you that I am correct, not spout my views randomly. So, I have to use what you believe to convince you of such. If I argue from an atheist standpoint, you would never believe my arguments, because you believe in God—the discussion wouldn’t go anywhere. Yes, all life SHOULD be respected no matter how small, or dangerous. Saying that I cannot eat anything except fruits is a stretch. The need for me to survive out weighs the needs of an animal to survive, but the need for me to choose does not. So, hunting for sport is immoral, but hunting for food, is not.

Brutus wrote: "Also, as for that potential business, I'm not sure that I used the right word. I meant potential soul... as in it has the potential to become a child of God. In which case, if I fall down the stairs and break my neck I already have a soul, so that arguement is irrelevant."

You missed the point. Because you do NOT have to fulfill the potential of falling down stairs and breaking your neck, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER POTENTIAL **HAVE** TO BE FULFILLED. You have the potential to commit suicide, the potential to burn your house down, the potential to assault a police officer, the potential to drive a car through a red light, and so on. NONE of them MUST happen. And neither must any other potential thing happen, either.

That is my exact point. What God wants to happen is not always fulfilled. Murder still occurs, against his will, and stealing, and many more evils. I think that we SHOULD live how God wants, but we don’t, which is doing evil. If God intends for a child to be born (soul or soulless), isn’t going against his will doing evil?

Brutus wrote: "To adress your last point, I thought it was clear that we were arguing about the problem from a Christian standpoint (which is the religion you practice, I think, correct me if I am wrong), and a monogomous relationship is a Christian value."

Nice try, but no cigar. I do not subscribe to many Christian beliefs, because I have reason to think most of them are nonsense (as indicated in Messages #2 and #25). Some MAY not be nonsense. God may exist, for example. This does NOT automatically mean that ANYTHING ever claimed to be true of God is actually true. HUMANS wrote the Bible, not God, and human self-interest is very obviously present in there. Stuff about monogamy is just preachers' say-so. If God exists, it doesn't even mean any iota of the Universe was Created. So far as we know, both could have happened independently of each other. SO: I use logic to poke holes in religion-based claims relevant to abortion. YOU have absolutely no business claiming athiesm, the belief that God is nonexistent, and then also SUPPORTING religion-blased claims relevant to abortion. An athiest must use irreligious arguments against abortion, or else be branded a hypocrite.

How do you feel on marriage? And again, I am trying to convince you not spout my beliefs. And I disagree highly with you last sentence. If we do not argue on the same basis we will never get anywhere, or reach any conclusion.

 

[FutureIncoming]

"Brutus quoted: "It does NOT make sense to think that God puts souls into zygotes, and may not make sense for God to put souls into any fetus younger than 6 months."

--and wrote: "I don't know where you got that from. I guess it must be knowledge that you assumed, perhaps incorrectly."

--and quoted: "The logic is explained in Message #2. If you can't scroll to see it on this Web page, then the previous-page-selector at the upper right will help you find it."

--and wrote: "Your logic is explained in Message #2, but I don't see how you can conclude that 6 months is the ABSOLUTE minimum amount of time before a soul can enter an embryo."

At the end of 6 months the brain connects to the spinal cord, and significant activity begins in the brain. What do you suppose a soul DOES inside a body? Just sit there? If it (the source of Free Will) is responsible enough for a human's actions to be punishable in an "afterlife", then it must manipulate the brain to perform actions. And significant brain activities are detectable at the end of the second trimester. Before then, "no significant brain activity" might as well mean "soul not present". ON ANOTHER HAND, remember that the brain activities of an unborn human are roughly equivalent to the brain activities of any other ordinary unborn mammal. Why should we assume a soul is present even when these activities begin? It occurs to me to consider an experiment. Find a pregnant woman who plans to have a Cesarean delivery. Upon surgically opening the uterus, INSTEAD of immediately pulling out the babe, FIRST attach a bunch of EEG wires to its head. Get some brain-wave measurements. THEN remove the babe, and keep measuring. Lots of folks (mostly not Christians) think the soul doesn't officially become part of the human body until after birth. If true, maybe its arrival can be detected! {I can also repeat, "If a soul (the source of Free Will) is responsible enough for a human's actions to be punishable in an "afterlife", then it must manipulate the brain to perform actions." Well, what actions CAN IT DO while trapped in a womb? Why SHOULD a soul become part of a human before birth?}

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "Yes, sex is a completely physical process, but isn’t the development of a fetus and the birth of a child also completely physical? I’m not sure if that argument is valid."

I think you are misinterpreting that part of the argument. The argument is that (per Christian beliefs) God must create the soul; its formation CANNOT be a consequence of the physical process of conception and growth. So, WHEN does God do that? If Christians are going to claim that souls become part of the body as early as possible, they should recognize that GOD, not wasteful, will logically wait to ignore zygotes/embryos that fail to implant in the womb, and will wait for any twinning and/or chimerism to be finished, and will not bother to make souls for the ones so genetically defective (like hydatidiform moles) that miscarriage is obviously going to happen, and so on. (The preceding likely will take a week after conception, making RU486 "morning after" birth control QUITE acceptable!)



Brutus wrote: "As for saying that putting a soul into an embryo at an early stage is like forcing it into a sensory deprivation chamber I would have to disagree. You’re assuming that having a soul gives you consciousness (or the power to choose and react above basic animal instincts), which is incorrect. How much do you remember from when you were one year old? How many moral decisions did you make when you were one year old?"

It seems to me that what you wrote is MORE reason why a soul does not become part of a human body until after birth! Making even "partial birth" abortions completely acceptable, heh heh heh. Or, are you saying that God creates a "partial" soul for the fetus, such that it grows with the fetus? WHY should God do it that way? JUST so you can ban abortion? When it would be exactly as simple for all-powerful God to create a fully capable soul after birth. Let's see the EVIDENCE for any such claim as partial souls for fetuses! And while you are assembling that evidence, why don't you double-check that last sentence of Message #2?

Finally, as for remembering, perhaps you have heard about "hypnotic regression"? Here is the most objective Web page I've seen on the subject:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu...regression.cfm
You might note that if there is any truth to regression to "past lives", where various people have shown thorough knowledge of a foreign language that they were never taught while growing up in the good old USA, then God is NOT making any new souls, and instead souls are reincarnating, AFTER BIRTH, a notion that throws Christian dogma out the window, and allows abortions, too!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "agnositc" instead of "athiest"?) Also, what of life-forms like cockroaches and rats and fleas and lice and black-plague bacteria? You cannot show any favoritism if you claim all life must be respected (You cannot eat much, either, since almost every edible thing except fruits you obtain by killing something else, even if only the dormant life of a corn-kernel/seed.)"

--and wrote: "Again, I’m trying to convince you that I am correct, not spout my views randomly. So, I have to use what you believe to convince you of such."

Ah, but this isn't going to work at all when you debate with me, because I don't subscribe to illogical Christian beliefs. OR to the formalized beliefs of most other religions, either! As partly indicated in Message #2. (Not to mention that it is almost too easy to poke holes into their anti-abortion arguments, simply because of all the illogic and/or lack-of-evidence at their foundations.)


Brutus also wrote: "If I argue from an atheist standpoint, you would never believe my arguments,"


Heh, TRY ME. I bet I can poke holes into them, too! (Belief in a given set of statements is not necessary to point out any illogic they contain.) I'm convinced that NO anti-abortion argument holds water. Period.


Brutus also wrote: "because you believe in God—the discussion wouldn’t go anywhere. Yes, all life SHOULD be respected no matter how small, or dangerous. Saying that I cannot eat anything except fruits is a stretch."

No stretch at all. It's the logical consequence of claiming ALL life should be respected!


Brutus also wrote: "The need for me to survive out weighs the needs of an animal to survive,"

Tsk, tsk. On what basis, besides sheer egotistical selfishness, can you say your life is more important than all the others that perished to support you? (Or the ones that perished because they got in your way, like the thousands or millions of bacteria your immune system kills every day?)


Brutus also wrote: "...but the need for me to choose does not. So, hunting for sport is immoral, but hunting for food, is not."

OK, so you are trying. But not hard enough, heh heh, due to selfishness mentioned above.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "Because you do NOT have to fulfill the potential of falling down stairs and breaking your neck, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER POTENTIAL **HAVE** TO BE FULFILLED. You have the potential to commit suicide, the potential to burn your house down, the potential to assault a police officer, the potential to drive a car through a red light, and so on. NONE of them MUST happen. And neither must any other potential thing happen, either."

--and wrote: "That is my exact point. What God wants to happen is not always fulfilled. Murder still occurs, against his will, and stealing, and many more evils."

Yes, Free Will is in action all over. Several of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule make for a pretty good set of guides for life, REGARDLESS of whether or not God had anything to do with specifying them. (The first few Commandments are about God; if God does not exist, then those are ignorable -- and even if God DOES exist, we can't be certain that the preachers didn't make them up just to acquire more social power. "Keep the Sabbath holy", for example, is a reminder to regularly go to the temple and give stuff to the preachers. What a racket!)


Brutus also wrote: "I think that we SHOULD live how God wants, but we don’t, which is doing evil."

NONSENSE! "Be fruitful and multiply" is hardly something we need to do any more, on this overpopulated Earth. All THAT will get us is a Malthusean Catastrophe. That's one specific counterexample to what you wrote. There may be others. Let's see...if you are attacked by a serial killer, and instead kill him, then you have broken the Don't-Kill Commandment -- but as far as Society is concerned you have done more good than evil. Will God disagree? Were you SUPPOSED to be murdered? Free Will makes a hash of Rules Set In Stone, such as stating that not doing what God wants is automatically the same as doing evil.


Brutus also wrote: "If God intends for a child to be born (soul or soulless), isn’t going against his will doing evil?"

AH, but NOW you are making the unwarranted assumption that God intends for a child to be born. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT CLAIM? Look at this:
http://www.john2117.org/DevotionHTMLs/121200ready.htm
According to that, even Mary had a CHOICE regarding the pregnancy that led to Jesus' birth. And do keep in mind, please, that the choice to indulge in sex is NOT the same thing as the choice to become pregnant. If you dare to believe otherwise, then answer this:
A pregnancy is perfectly natural mindless biology in action. Do humans claim subservience to natural mindless biology, or do they claim superiority over natural mindless biology? If subservient, then why are medical procedures from immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If superior, then why should ANY woman be required OR EVEN EXPECTED to carry a pregnancy to term? ARE YOU SUCH A HYPOCRITE THAT YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A PILL OR HAVE AN OPERATION, to deal with some unwanted natural-mindless-biological aspect of your body, but a woman should not?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "How do you feel on marriage?"

In general, marriage has the purpose of providing a stable environment in which to raise children. I don't know that it makes a lot of sense to get married if children are never intended to be part of the picture. Other than that, as far as I'm concerned, the details of a marriage should be left up to the participants. If they want monogamy, fine. If they want something different and complicated, FINE. They are the ones who have to make it work, after all (which is true even for mere monogamy).

 

[steen]

This is mainly... attacking the belief that God is the biggest abortionist ever. Obviously (because God knows everything), God knows which eggs are to develop into human beings and which eggs are going to be expelled from the female body. So... I would argue that God wouldn't give souls to the eggs that aren't going to develop into babies and would give souls to the eggs that are.

Fiirst you would have to show that souls are actually placed in egg.

Even if the soul isn't in the embryo yet, terminating the embryo before it has a chance to become a child of God is against God's plan,

because you say so? Given your previous, unsubstantiated belief, God as likely could be terminating embryos against God's own plan. Or the abortion might be part of God's plan. You can not possibly know that it isn't, given your parameters.

and destroying a potential is therefore immoral--

But not if God planned the abortion, right?

Also, any woman who is thinking about getting an abortion because it threatens her life is a greedy wench who shouldn't be having children in the first place.

Ah, because you say so? Because she doesn't agree with the DUTY that YOU want to put on her at no risk to yourself?

 

[Brutus]

"Brutus quoted: "It does NOT make sense to think that God puts souls into zygotes, and may not make sense for God to put souls into any fetus younger than 6 months."

--and wrote: "I don't know where you got that from. I guess it must be knowledge that you assumed, perhaps incorrectly."

--and quoted: "The logic is explained in Message #2. If you can't scroll to see it on this Web page, then the previous-page-selector at the upper right will help you find it."

--and wrote: "Your logic is explained in Message #2, but I don't see how you can conclude that 6 months is the ABSOLUTE minimum amount of time before a soul can enter an embryo."

At the end of 6 months the brain connects to the spinal cord, and significant activity begins in the brain. What do you suppose a soul DOES inside a body? Just sit there? If it (the source of Free Will) is responsible enough for a human's actions to be punishable in an "afterlife", then it must manipulate the brain to perform actions. And significant brain activities are detectable at the end of the second trimester. Before then, "no significant brain activity" might as well mean "soul not present". ON ANOTHER HAND, remember that the brain activities of an unborn human are roughly equivalent to the brain activities of any other ordinary unborn mammal. Why should we assume a soul is present even when these activities begin? It occurs to me to consider an experiment. Find a pregnant woman who plans to have a Cesarean delivery. Upon surgically opening the uterus, INSTEAD of immediately pulling out the babe, FIRST attach a bunch of EEG wires to its head. Get some brain-wave measurements. THEN remove the babe, and keep measuring. Lots of folks (mostly not Christians) think the soul doesn't officially become part of the human body until after birth. If true, maybe its arrival can be detected! {I can also repeat, "If a soul (the source of Free Will) is responsible enough for a human's actions to be punishable in an "afterlife", then it must manipulate the brain to perform actions." Well, what actions CAN IT DO while trapped in a womb? Why SHOULD a soul become part of a human before birth?}

So are you arguing that at 2 trimesters you know the difference between right and wrong? I think you are confusing biology with theology. Brain activity does not signify a soul (at very young ages, you believe at birth or two trimesters, doesn't matter). And even under that argument that souls are what gives us the ability to distinguish right from wrong, then do the mentally disabled have no souls? I think you are equating souls to cognitive power, in which case souls are obsolete all together.

And your final statements... they assume that God only gives us a soul so that our actions can be punished. Just because it has nothing to do inside the womb doesn't mean that it isn't there.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus wrote: "Yes, sex is a completely physical process, but isn’t the development of a fetus and the birth of a child also completely physical? I’m not sure if that argument is valid."

I think you are misinterpreting that part of the argument. The argument is that (per Christian beliefs) God must create the soul; its formation CANNOT be a consequence of the physical process of conception and growth. So, WHEN does God do that? If Christians are going to claim that souls become part of the body as early as possible, they should recognize that GOD, not wasteful, will logically wait to ignore zygotes/embryos that fail to implant in the womb, and will wait for any twinning and/or chimerism to be finished, and will not bother to make souls for the ones so genetically defective (like hydatidiform moles) that miscarriage is obviously going to happen, and so on. (The preceding likely will take a week after conception, making RU486 "morning after" birth control QUITE acceptable!)

Well... yes, but if you believe that God knows everything (which most do) than none of these problems exist, if you don't inform me and I'll argue from a different standpoint. God isn't going to be wasteful, but since he already knows which zygotes are going to fail, he is only going to give zygotes that are going to succeed.

Brutus wrote: "As for saying that putting a soul into an embryo at an early stage is like forcing it into a sensory deprivation chamber I would have to disagree. You’re assuming that having a soul gives you consciousness (or the power to choose and react above basic animal instincts), which is incorrect. How much do you remember from when you were one year old? How many moral decisions did you make when you were one year old?"

It seems to me that what you wrote is MORE reason why a soul does not become part of a human body until after birth! Making even "partial birth" abortions completely acceptable, heh heh heh. Or, are you saying that God creates a "partial" soul for the fetus, such that it grows with the fetus? WHY should God do it that way? JUST so you can ban abortion? When it would be exactly as simple for all-powerful God to create a fully capable soul after birth. Let's see the EVIDENCE for any such claim as partial souls for fetuses! And while you are assembling that evidence, why don't you double-check that last sentence of Message #2?

No I'm saying that consciousness and a soul are completely seperate. If a soul is to be completely done by God, why should it have any physical relations at all (which is one of your arguments)?

Finally, as for remembering, perhaps you have heard about "hypnotic regression"? Here is the most objective Web page I've seen on the subject:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu...regression.cfm
You might note that if there is any truth to regression to "past lives", where various people have shown thorough knowledge of a foreign language that they were never taught while growing up in the good old USA, then God is NOT making any new souls, and instead souls are reincarnating, AFTER BIRTH, a notion that throws Christian dogma out the window, and allows abortions, too!

No. Just because God isn't making any new souls doesn't mean that abortion should be legal. For example, knowing that souls reincarnate would allow us to murder--because they are (the souls) just going to come back in a different body anyway, right? I'm not sure I believe in past lives anyway. I've heard of this, but I believe it's more of the scary amount of information that our brain is actually able to learn if it's used at 100% efficiency. For example, you may subconsciously learn a language (you've heard scattered words and sentences around and your brain absorbs it), not be able to say a single word consciously but... sure enough you can speak in your sleep.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus quoted: "agnositc" instead of "athiest"?) Also, what of life-forms like cockroaches and rats and fleas and lice and black-plague bacteria? You cannot show any favoritism if you claim all life must be respected (You cannot eat much, either, since almost every edible thing except fruits you obtain by killing something else, even if only the dormant life of a corn-kernel/seed.)"

--and wrote: "Again, I’m trying to convince you that I am correct, not spout my views randomly. So, I have to use what you believe to convince you of such."

Ah, but this isn't going to work at all when you debate with me, because I don't subscribe to illogical Christian beliefs. OR to the formalized beliefs of most other religions, either! As partly indicated in Message #2. (Not to mention that it is almost too easy to poke holes into their anti-abortion arguments, simply because of all the illogic and/or lack-of-evidence at their foundations.)


Brutus also wrote: "If I argue from an atheist standpoint, you would never believe my arguments,"


Heh, TRY ME. I bet I can poke holes into them, too! (Belief in a given set of statements is not necessary to point out any illogic they contain.) I'm convinced that NO anti-abortion argument holds water. Period.

Wow, I'm so impressed Socrates! You've figured out that the negative dialectic is way easier than actually making any stands of your own. Explain to me why abortion is right (that is, don't show me why it isn't wrong, show me why it is right).

Brutus also wrote: "because you believe in God—the discussion wouldn’t go anywhere. Yes, all life SHOULD be respected no matter how small, or dangerous. Saying that I cannot eat anything except fruits is a stretch."

No stretch at all. It's the logical consequence of claiming ALL life should be respected!

There is a difference between survival and choice.

Brutus also wrote: "The need for me to survive out weighs the needs of an animal to survive,"

Tsk, tsk. On what basis, besides sheer egotistical selfishness, can you say your life is more important than all the others that perished to support you? (Or the ones that perished because they got in your way, like the thousands or millions of bacteria your immune system kills every day?)

I have a soul, they don't.

Brutus also wrote: "...but the need for me to choose does not. So, hunting for sport is immoral, but hunting for food, is not."

OK, so you are trying. But not hard enough, heh heh, due to selfishness mentioned above.

Get off your high horse and stop being condescending. Any old fool can poke holes in arguements--just find one sentence that has one small error in it and expound on it. Try to reason with me, not spout insults.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus quoted: "Because you do NOT have to fulfill the potential of falling down stairs and breaking your neck, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER POTENTIAL **HAVE** TO BE FULFILLED. You have the potential to commit suicide, the potential to burn your house down, the potential to assault a police officer, the potential to drive a car through a red light, and so on. NONE of them MUST happen. And neither must any other potential thing happen, either."

--and wrote: "That is my exact point. What God wants to happen is not always fulfilled. Murder still occurs, against his will, and stealing, and many more evils."

Yes, Free Will is in action all over. Several of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule make for a pretty good set of guides for life, REGARDLESS of whether or not God had anything to do with specifying them. (The first few Commandments are about God; if God does not exist, then those are ignorable -- and even if God DOES exist, we can't be certain that the preachers didn't make them up just to acquire more social power. "Keep the Sabbath holy", for example, is a reminder to regularly go to the temple and give stuff to the preachers. What a racket!)

I'm confused, you believe in God, but you don't believe that what he wants is the ultimate good? True that all of the Bible and the Ten Commandments were written by men, but does that mean that God had no hand in it?

Brutus also wrote: "I think that we SHOULD live how God wants, but we don’t, which is doing evil."

NONSENSE! "Be fruitful and multiply" is hardly something we need to do any more, on this overpopulated Earth. All THAT will get us is a Malthusean Catastrophe. That's one specific counterexample to what you wrote. There may be others. Let's see...if you are attacked by a serial killer, and instead kill him, then you have broken the Don't-Kill Commandment -- but as far as Society is concerned you have done more good than evil. Will God disagree? Were you SUPPOSED to be murdered? Free Will makes a hash of Rules Set In Stone, such as stating that not doing what God wants is automatically the same as doing evil.

Ha ha. I thought that you said that we weren't to take the Bible verbatim, yet now you seem to believe that God wrote it. Interesting.

Brutus also wrote: "If God intends for a child to be born (soul or soulless), isn’t going against his will doing evil?"

AH, but NOW you are making the unwarranted assumption that God intends for a child to be born. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT CLAIM? Look at this:
http://www.john2117.org/DevotionHTMLs/121200ready.htm
According to that, even Mary had a CHOICE regarding the pregnancy that led to Jesus' birth. And do keep in mind, please, that the choice to indulge in sex is NOT the same thing as the choice to become pregnant. If you dare to believe otherwise, then answer this:
A pregnancy is perfectly natural mindless biology in action. Do humans claim subservience to natural mindless biology, or do they claim superiority over natural mindless biology? If subservient, then why are medical procedures from immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If superior, then why should ANY woman be required OR EVEN EXPECTED to carry a pregnancy to term? ARE YOU SUCH A HYPOCRITE THAT YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A PILL OR HAVE AN OPERATION, to deal with some unwanted natural-mindless-biological aspect of your body, but a woman should not?

Actually, wasn't Mary given a choice by an angel (I'm not really up to par on the Bible, correct me if I'm wrong)?
Also, saying that I'm a hypocrite because I should take a pill or have an operation is just wrong. My heart is part of my body. A zygote is a seperate human organism.
You don't believe that God has a hand in everything that happens?

 

[Brutus]

Well, I'll make my athiest arguement for abortion now. We are no better than animals, or different than animals. The ultimate law of the land should be that of justice... or fairness (whichever you may choose). The reason abortion is wrong is the same reason that murder is wrong. You are killing a human being without giving them a chance to fight back. Maybe in this case it is even worse than murder--when a murderer kills a victim they are large and can act independently; they have a chance of survival. Abortion is just straight up slaughter. That's basically where I'm coming from. Drop the other business, I'm not religious anyway.

 

[steen]

Well... yes, but if you believe that God knows everything (which most do) than none of these problems exist, if you don't inform me and I'll argue from a different standpoint. God isn't going to be wasteful, but since he already knows which zygotes are going to fail, he is only going to give zygotes that are going to succeed.

But then, God also then would know which ones would be aborted, so that is a lousy argument against abortion.

No I'm saying that consciousness and a soul are completely seperate. If a soul is to be completely done by God, why should it have any physical relations at all (which is one of your arguments)?

So an abortion doesn't destroy a soul, as it has no physical limitations. hence, the issue of a soul is completely irrelevant to the issue of abortions.

No. Just because God isn't making any new souls doesn't mean that abortion should be legal.

Nor does it mean that abortion should be illegal. In fact, as you show above, the ensoulment issue thus is utterly irrelevant.

For example, knowing that souls reincarnate would allow us to murder--because they are (the souls) just going to come back in a different body anyway, right? I'm not sure I believe in past lives anyway. I've heard of this, but I believe it's more of the scary amount of information that our brain is actually able to learn if it's used at 100% efficiency. For example, you may subconsciously learn a language (you've heard scattered words and sentences around and your brain absorbs it), not be able to say a single word consciously but... sure enough you can speak in your sleep.

Yes, a person's functioning brain is powerful. Again, irrelevant to abortions.

 

[steen]

Well, I'll make my athiest arguement for abortion now. We are no better than animals, or different than animals. The ultimate law of the land should be that of justice... or fairness (whichever you may choose).

Indeed. No person should be assigned urdens that no other person bears. hence, women should not be forced to give of their bodily resources against their will unless this applied to EVERYBODY. So until you advocate for ANY bodily use as being enforsable, your argument would be hypocritical. Therefore, unless you also advocate for forced blood donation, f.ex, you would merely be hypocritically working AGAINST justice and fairness when seeking to force women to give of their bodily resources against their will.

The reason abortion is wrong is the same reason that murder is wrong. You are killing a human being without giving them a chance to fight back.

But then, your BELIEF that an embryo is a human "being" is merely existing in your mind. I see no being in an embryo.

Maybe in this case it is even worse than murder--when a murderer kills a victim they are large and can act independently; they have a chance of survival. Abortion is just straight up slaughter.

Ah, overheated prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole. yeah, and you want to be a slave master, right? Yeah, we can certainly go that silly and idiotic route if you want to, SLAVER!

That's basically where I'm coming from. Drop the other business, I'm not religious anyway.

But you want to enslave women while cowardly seeking to excuse yourself from a similar duty of giving bodily resources against your will, right!

 

[steen]

A zygote is a seperate human organism.

What qualities in a zygote makes it a separate organism? Just about anything I can think off would also make the hydatidiform mole a human organism. It sure sounds like a silly argument, but perhaps you can clarify?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "So are you arguing that at 2 trimesters you know the difference between right and wrong? I think you are confusing biology with theology."

On what basis can you say that a new-made soul knows the difference between right and wrong? Isn't it supposed to get some training first? Isn't there some sort of Limbo for souls when their bodies die before becoming old enough for them to understand what Jesus had to say? IF the second is true, THEN training is essential before right and wrong can be distinguished!



Brutus also wrote: "Brain activity does not signify a soul (at very young ages, you believe at birth or two trimesters, doesn't matter). And even under that argument that souls are what gives us the ability to distinguish right from wrong, then do the mentally disabled have no souls? I think you are equating souls to cognitive power, in which case souls are obsolete all together."

Not really. If after death a soul is condemned to Hell, then what good is such a punishment if it can't UNDERSTAND the punishment? The soul therefore MUST, if it exists at all, relevant to a consistent theology, encompass a significant degree of sentience. So, when that sentience becomes part of a human, sometime during or after pregnancy, a relevant change in magnitude of brain-activity should logically be detectable.


Brutus also wrote: "And your final statements... they assume that God only gives us a soul so that our actions can be punished."

No, just because I didn't mention the Heavenly Reward factor, that does not mean that factor is not present in standard Christian theology, ALONG WITH the punishment factor and the power to choose good or evil. I was simply shortening my statements by not mentioning the well-known opposite of hellish punishment.


Brutus also wrote: "Just because it has nothing to do inside the womb doesn't mean that it isn't there."

Heh, this is a case where those making the claim (regarding when a soul is present) need to supply the supporting evidence. Go right ahead! Remember, this particular discussion started when you asked me about why I claimed it wasn't sensible for a soul to be associated with a fetus for the first six months or so. I never claimed it HAD to be present, even after six months; I was just leaving the door open for the possibility.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "? If Christians are going to claim that souls become part of the body as early as possible, they should recognize that GOD, not wasteful, will logically wait to ignore zygotes/embryos that fail to implant in the womb, and will wait for any twinning and/or chimerism to be finished, and will not bother to make souls for the ones so genetically defective (like hydatidiform moles) that miscarriage is obviously going to happen, and so on. (The preceding likely will take a week after conception, making RU486 "morning after" birth control QUITE acceptable!)"

--and wrote: "Well... yes, but if you believe that God knows everything (which most do) than none of these problems exist, if you don't inform me and I'll argue from a different standpoint. God isn't going to be wasteful, but since he already knows which zygotes are going to fail, he is only going to give zygotes that are going to succeed."

AH, BUT THIS ALSO MEANS God is aware of the probabilities that some fetuses may be aborted. Per my question at the end of Message #2, why should God make souls for THOSE zygotes/future-fetuses?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "No I'm saying that consciousness and a soul are completely seperate."

Nope. As explained in Message #47, such a claim is theologically illogical/inconsistent.


Brutus also wrote: "If a soul is to be completely done by God, why should it have any physical relations at all (which is one of your arguments)?"

This is not a very clear question. Let me assume you are asking, "Why should a soul have any ability to interact with the physical world?" If so, then the answer is obvious. ONLY by interacting can it become responsible for any good or evil actions of the body in the physical world! If you meant some other thing by your Question, please rephrase it.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "Just because God isn't making any new souls doesn't mean that abortion should be legal. For example, knowing that souls reincarnate would allow us to murder--because they are (the souls) just going to come back in a different body anyway, right?"

It means immortal souls can afford to wait to be born, into families that want them. Why MUST a selfish desire to be born, on the part of some soul waiting to incarnate, be given any more shrift than any other person's average selfish desire? NO ONE always gets what they want, just because they want it!


Brutus also wrote: "I'm not sure I believe in past lives anyway. I've heard of this, but I believe it's more of the scary amount of information that our brain is actually able to learn if it's used at 100% efficiency. For example, you may subconsciously learn a language (you've heard scattered words and sentences around and your brain absorbs it), not be able to say a single word consciously but... sure enough you can speak in your sleep."

Read this page again:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu...regression.cfm
The Scientific Method REQUIRES taking into account exactly such things as you described; and the indication is that the researcher who created that page is being extremely careful. That means he's probably looking for people born in Heartland America, where nobody encounters any language except English, and when regressed they turn out to know a very uncommon language (in the US) like Arabic or Swahili. Even ONE such case gives some credence to reincarnation, and a number of such cases are known...what **I** want to see is somebody showing knowledge of some really extinct and never-translated language, like Linear-A/Minoan. That would just about be a clincher.