the truth about abortion

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "I'm convinced that NO anti-abortion argument holds water. Period."

--and wrote: "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).

CERTAINLY. To the extent that human Free Will is superior to natural mindless biology, abortion is a way to say, 'WE DO NOT UNWILLINGLY SUBMIT TO THE DICTATES OF NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY."

Now, what is the hole in THAT?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus 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."

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

Brutus responded: "There is a difference between survival and choice."

You can always choose not to survive. SHOULD you choose to survive? Why, when you know what it costs many many many other life-forms?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "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?)"

--and wrote: "I have a soul, they don't."


This from an athiest? How do you expect anyone to believe such a claim if you do not provide athiest-type explanations? Yes, I know you are pretending to offer Christian-type explanations, but that explanation still doesn't work very well. I can simply say, PROVE IT, that you have a soul and they don't. If you are going to make the claim, you should be able to offer the evidence! On the other hand, I don't need to request proof, since I've already offered SOME evidence for the existence of souls within this very Message Thread (past-life regressions). I can simply ask, "If you accept the deaths of all the life that gets in your way, like the too-small-too-see insects on a sidewalk where you are walking, then what about when a soulless fetus gets in your way? --and I can ask it due to Messages #48 and #2, in this Thread, indicating that any about-to-be aborted fetus, due to the Omniscience of a loving God, should not be expected to have a soul!

 

[FutureIncoming]

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

FutureIncoming replied: "OK, so you are trying. But not hard enough, heh heh, due to selfishness mentioned above." {{not quoted here; see Message #35}}

Brutus responded: "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."


It is a FACT that EVERYONE exhibits selfishness. EATING is the selfish feeding of your own face at the expense of whatever life-form died so you could eat it. HOWEVER, it is also CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE selfishness, in the USA. (Other cultures are more strict about what you can kill and eat, like the Hindus.) It is possible that every imaginable crime can be described as "excess selfishness in action". You may claim that hunting for sport is such a crime, but what about hunting for deer-population-control? Remember, wolves used to keep deer from explosively breeding, eating all the available greenery in the woods, and then dying in droves in a Malthusean Catastrophe. When humans killed most of the wolves because they wouldn't leave our sheep and cattle alone, deer population needed to be checked some other way. Hunting for sport IS one such way! The hunting MUST BE DONE, regardless of whether or not the meat is eaten.

Back to the main debate. You are now likely going to claim that abortion is excess selfishness in action. But the definition above of "crime" wasn't quite complete: the Free Wills of others affected by the criminal are part of the picture. A "crime against Nature", like clear-cutting a forest, can be called excess selfishness because of all the people whose wills have been thwarted, who wanted to experience/enjoy the forest. OK, if souls do not exist then the fetus doesn't have Free Will (more than animal-level brainpower IS required, for human-scale Free Will), and if souls do exist, there is neither evidence nor even much logic to say that that to-be-aborted fetus must have a soul. Therefore abortion does NOT much affect the free will of another, and cannot be called excess selfishness! (A wanting-to-incarnate soul is merely waiting/hoping, and being immortal can afford to wait for as long as it takes.)

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "(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!)"

--and wrote: "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?"

NO, I don't outright claim to believe in God. I believe God's existence is POSSIBLE, but I'd like to see more evidence. Here's something I first posted elsewhere, that may remove some of your confusion:
+++
The fundamental problem with the Bible is that it was written by humans.
God did NOT sit down and write it.
Humans CLAIMED to have been inspired by God, to write it.
Humans are often liars, however. Why should those claims be believed?
Sure, you can point to descriptions of miracles in the Bible, but humans who might be lying wrote those down, too!
EVERY objective analysis of the Bible notes that the early books, supposedly written by Moses, define the creation of a "theocracy", government of the people by the preachers for the preachers -- and Moses was the chief preacher, of course. This is actually admitted and spelled out in Deuteronomy 17:12 (KJV), "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel."

From the preceding, it is easy to conclude that the preachers who wrote the Bible put in as many self-serving things as they wanted. Even the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 325AD, which had the task of assembling the modern Bible from the many Books that had been written in prior centuries, was a bunch of preachers who VOTED on what to include and what to exclude.

And so a number of things are easily explained as consequences:
Kill the unbelievers/heretics: They do not tithe to the preachers, of course.
Be fruitful and multiply: Make lots of babies who will grow up to tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit abortion: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit homosexualtiy: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit mast_rbation: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit contraception: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.

(As a result, for centuries the wealthiest organization in the world was the Roman Catholic Church.)

What God, if exists, ACTUALLY thinks about such rules may be an entirely different thing, altogether. But how to find out?
+++

OK? NO MATTER WHAT YOU SEE IN THE BIBLE, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, unless other evidence comes along. Only God can tell us to what extent the Bible is full of lies. Some lies we know about from archeological reasearch; not so long ago, for example, a National Geographic article reported on what had been discovered about the Philistines; MORE artistic than the Israelites, they were. Not brutes. Remember that Truth is always the first casualty in war, and that the first truth to be denied is that the Enemies are people, too -- and that the histories (such as the Bible) are always written by the victors.

 

[FutureIncoming]

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

FutureIncoming replied: "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 responded: "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."

NONSENSE, AGAIN. "Be fruitful and multiply" is something CLAIMED by preachers to be something that God wants. I picked it as an example (how do YOU choose which things are due to God and which aren't?); that's all. SO, INSTEAD OF IMPLYING HYPOCRISY ON MY PART, WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THE IMPLIED CHALLENGE, TO ACCURATELY IDENTIFY "GOD'S WANTS", SUCH THAT NOT COMPLYING IS EVIL?

 

[FutureIncoming]

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

FutureIncoming replied: "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?"

Brutus responded: "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)?

DUH, THAT'S WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. Read the link.


Brutus continued: "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."

That does not make it any less mindless than your heart, or superior to your Free Will.

Brutus concluded: "You don't believe that God has a hand in everything that happens?"

If true, where is the evidence? The Evidence that we have is, IF God exists, God may have set off the Big Bang at the beginning of the Universe, and then done NOTHING (or almost nothing; let's leave room for possible occasional miraculous answers to prayers). Being omniscient, see, God would have KNOWN that humans would be one of the consequences of the Big Bang, courtesy of Evolution. Fundamentalists who believe otherwise, about human origins, are insulting God's know-how!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "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)."

Well, on what basis should humans place themselves ahead of animals? Why don't you commit suicide so flies can convert your carcass into lots more flies? That's sacrificing one life for the benefit of many, after all! (That's not a vieled request; I'm just asking out of curiosity.)



I will now ASSUME that the answer to the preceding has to do with Free Will, which allows humans to be more than mere biological stimulus/response machines, and different thereby from any ordinary animal. No Free Wills benefit if a bunch of flies are hatched.


Brutus wrote: "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.

This is where my assumption about Free Will pokes a hole in your arguement. (I expect that if you have an alternative/equivalent answer to my question above, then I can use that here to poke a hole, also.) Murder is ACTUALLY the killing of someone who has Free Will, against that persons Will. (Thus killing extraterrestrial intelligences can be murder, too, but swatting flies is never murder.) An unborn human does not have enough brainpower for Free Will; therefore killing it CANNOT be murder.

ALSO, CONSIDER THIS:
Consider the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI"). If it succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress. Note that there is a distinct EQUIVALENCE between PIECES of such a technology, compared to the whole AI, and the body of a fetus, compared to an independent human being. That is, the manufacturing of pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. Now remember that future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an interesting absurdity, in that if opponents of abortion require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, then logically they should ALSO require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible! The two notions really are that equivalent, and so to declare the mandatory production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare the anti-abortion stand to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist. SO NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE OF THE FETUS, as long as its brainpower is animal-level, there is NO requirement that it must continue to grow.



Brutus concluded: "Drop the other business, I'm not religious anyway."

I think I'll assume that this means you are starting to recognize that the religion-based arguments against abortion don't hold water, just like I said.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus quoted: "I'm convinced that NO anti-abortion argument holds water. Period."

--and wrote: "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).

CERTAINLY. To the extent that human Free Will is superior to natural mindless biology, abortion is a way to say, 'WE DO NOT UNWILLINGLY SUBMIT TO THE DICTATES OF NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY."

Now, what is the hole in THAT?

The hole in that is simply this. Our free will is NOT superior to "natural mindless biology." Simply because someone's body is completely physical doesn't mean that my right to choose (if they live or die) should be superior. Especially coming from an athiest, where souls are non-existant. Free will is a completely physical process too, and is only a part of your body. It can only exist if "natural mindless biology" works, and should be subservient to it therefore.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus wrote: "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)."

Well, on what basis should humans place themselves ahead of animals? Why don't you commit suicide so flies can convert your carcass into lots more flies? That's sacrificing one life for the benefit of many, after all! (That's not a vieled request; I'm just asking out of curiosity.)

I will now ASSUME that the answer to the preceding has to do with Free Will, which allows humans to be more than mere biological stimulus/response machines, and different thereby from any ordinary animal. No Free Wills benefit if a bunch of flies are hatched.

Damn good question. I'd have to say it is out of greed (I enjoy living), and my lack of emotional attachment to flies.

Brutus wrote: "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.

This is where my assumption about Free Will pokes a hole in your arguement. (I expect that if you have an alternative/equivalent answer to my question above, then I can use that here to poke a hole, also.) Murder is ACTUALLY the killing of someone who has Free Will, against that persons Will. (Thus killing extraterrestrial intelligences can be murder, too, but swatting flies is never murder.) An unborn human does not have enough brainpower for Free Will; therefore killing it CANNOT be murder.

Hmm... so is the killing of the mentally handicapped right, Hitler? But seriously, this is where I disagree with your arguement. Killing someone who does not have the brainpower for free will is still murder (because killing the mentally disabled is murder). Again, I believe that murder is the killing of another human being, regaurdless of mental capacity.

ALSO, CONSIDER THIS:
Consider the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI"). If it succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress. Note that there is a distinct EQUIVALENCE between PIECES of such a technology, compared to the whole AI, and the body of a fetus, compared to an independent human being. That is, the manufacturing of pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. Now remember that future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an interesting absurdity, in that if opponents of abortion require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, then logically they should ALSO require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible! The two notions really are that equivalent, and so to declare the mandatory production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare the anti-abortion stand to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist. SO NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE OF THE FETUS, as long as its brainpower is animal-level, there is NO requirement that it must continue to grow.

Brutus concluded: "Drop the other business, I'm not religious anyway."

I think I'll assume that this means you are starting to recognize that the religion-based arguments against abortion don't hold water, just like I said.

Yes, religion based arguements don't really hold water (though my lack of good knowledge in the Bible may have something to do with it).

As for your argument, it is very good, if I believed that we shouldn't kill fetuses because they will eventually have the brainpower of a human (which I never stated).

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "To the extent that human Free Will is superior to natural mindless biology, abortion is a way to say, 'WE DO NOT UNWILLINGLY SUBMIT TO THE DICTATES OF NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY."
Now, what is the hole in THAT?"

--and wrote: "The hole in that is simply this. Our free will is NOT superior to "natural mindless biology." Simply because someone's body is completely physical doesn't mean that my right to choose (if they live or die) should be superior. Especially coming from an athiest, where souls are non-existant. Free will is a completely physical process too, and is only a part of your body. It can only exist if "natural mindless biology" works, and should be subservient to it therefore."

NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. Unless you think that "free will" does not exist. If free will does not exist, then humans are indeed mere stimulus/response biomachines, and when punched in the face fight-or-flight are your only options. But the evidence is against you, because humans CAN turn the other cheek, or do a headstand, or do a strip-tease, or make any other kind of choice totally unrelated to being punched in the face. THAT IS FREE WILL. And because humans have it, they ARE superior to natural mindless/robotic biology. Which means the rest of what you wrote becomes invalid logic.

If you are wondering about what physiological basis there can be, for free will, you need only recognize that nerves possess structures that can be influenced by random quantum events. See the NONBIOLOGICAL Uncertainty Principle of Physics. This means that nerves, in addition to their normal stimulus/response signalling, can also do random signalling. The well-developed human brain, in "computer" terms, is advanced enough that it can do more than merely "filter out" those random signals; it can ACCOMMODATE them without "crashing". Crazy notions aboud, therefore. Like choosing to do a headstand after being punched in the face.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus quoted: "To the extent that human Free Will is superior to natural mindless biology, abortion is a way to say, 'WE DO NOT UNWILLINGLY SUBMIT TO THE DICTATES OF NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY."
Now, what is the hole in THAT?"

--and wrote: "The hole in that is simply this. Our free will is NOT superior to "natural mindless biology." Simply because someone's body is completely physical doesn't mean that my right to choose (if they live or die) should be superior. Especially coming from an athiest, where souls are non-existant. Free will is a completely physical process too, and is only a part of your body. It can only exist if "natural mindless biology" works, and should be subservient to it therefore."

NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. Unless you think that "free will" does not exist. If free will does not exist, then humans are indeed mere stimulus/response biomachines, and when punched in the face fight-or-flight are your only options. But the evidence is against you, because humans CAN turn the other cheek, or do a headstand, or do a strip-tease, or make any other kind of choice totally unrelated to being punched in the face. THAT IS FREE WILL. And because humans have it, they ARE superior to natural mindless/robotic biology. Which means the rest of what you wrote becomes invalid logic.

If you are wondering about what physiological basis there can be, for free will, you need only recognize that nerves possess structures that can be influenced by random quantum events. See the Uncertainty Principle of Physics. This means that nerves, in addition to their normal stimulus/response signalling, can also do random signalling. The well-developed human brain, in "computer" terms, is advanced enough that it can do more than merely "filter out" those random signals; it can ACCOMMODATE them without "crashing". Crazy notions aboud, therefore. Like choosing to do a headstand after being punched in the face.

No no, all I'm saying is, without life you have no free will, so life should be superior to it (used the wrong word). What I'm saying is without natural mindless biology--like your heart beating or diaphragm contracting we have no life and no free will, so natural mindless biology SHOULD be placed ahead of free will. And is your free will REALLY superior to natural mindless biology? If your heart stops beating no amount of thinking or moral/immoral descisions are going to make your heart start beating again.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "Well, on what basis should humans place themselves ahead of animals? Why don't you commit suicide so flies can convert your carcass into lots more flies? That's sacrificing one life for the benefit of many, after all!"

--and wrote: "Damn good question. I'd have to say it is out of greed (I enjoy living), and my lack of emotional attachment to flies."


OK, you are basically claiming that your selfish desires are more important than the selfish desires of mindless organisms like flies. See how easy it is to apply that to an unwanted/mindless fetus? Do note that if a woman is unwanting of a fetus, an emotional attachment is probably lacking, also!

 

[Brutus]

Brutus quoted: "Well, on what basis should humans place themselves ahead of animals? Why don't you commit suicide so flies can convert your carcass into lots more flies? That's sacrificing one life for the benefit of many, after all!"

--and wrote: "Damn good question. I'd have to say it is out of greed (I enjoy living), and my lack of emotional attachment to flies."


OK, you are basically claiming that your selfish desires are more important than the selfish desires of mindless organisms like flies. See how easy it is to apply that to an unwanted/mindless fetus? Do note that if a woman is unwanting of a fetus, an emotional attachment is probably lacking, also!

No, not at all. Your argument is an illogical stretch. My suicide and a woman's pregnancy are not the same at all, unless her life is directly threatened by it.
For I still believe that I should not go out and kill flies for no reason at all. I place my own life above them, but that does not mean that I should be allowed to kill them on a whim.
Also, how do you feel about the mentally handicapped--respond to that bit please.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "No no, all I'm saying is, without life you have no free will, so life should be superior to it (used the wrong word). What I'm saying is without natural mindless biology--like your heart beating or diaphragm contracting we have no life and no free will, so natural mindless biology SHOULD be placed ahead of free will. And is your free will REALLY superior to natural mindless biology? If your heart stops beating no amount of thinking or moral/immoral descisions are going to make your heart start beating again."

AH, but we have DEMONSTRATED superiority by inventing medicine. TO TOTALLY ACCEPT natural mindless biology is to ban all medical treatments, not just abortion. (You DO know that those treatments sometimes involve humans with no heartbeat for 20 minutes or so, don't you? Google for "Life After Life".) Humans refuse a ban on medicine because they CLAIM superiority over natural mindless biology, even if the claim is untrue. Abortion then becomes CONSISTENT WITH THE CLAIM.

But as I said, we DO demonstrate superiority. I think I recall a case of some Eastern mystic sealing himself into a box for a week, and using powers-of-mind-over-body to basically hibernate it out. I don't recall for certain that heart-stopping was part of it, but it may have been. I certainly thought it was impressive, when I read about it years ago. So, even if we don't all demonstrate THAT degree of superiority over natural mindless biology, the fact remains that the average well-developed human can be trained fairly quickly to exhibit some of it (per biofeedback gadgets), and so we DO have superiority over natural mindless biology. Also, here is a conundrum for you, heh heh (since I doubt I can find a link to that Eastern mystic, how about some Western mystics?):
http://www.marypages.com/IncorruptBodies.htm

{{got to run; back later}}

 

[livefree]

The hole in that is simply this. Our free will is NOT superior to "natural mindless biology." Simply because someone's body is completely physical doesn't mean that my right to choose (if they live or die) should be superior. Especially coming from an atheist, where souls are non-existant. Free will is a completely physical process too, and is only a part of your body. It can only exist if "natural mindless biology" works, and should be subservient to it therefore.

You make no sense whatsoever. You talk in meaningless abstractions. You say that you're an atheist, but then try to use ridiculously lame 'religious' arguments. You've not even attempted to answer any of the fundamental questions on this issue that have been posed to you. You are a total waste of time. Get lost.

 

[Brutus]

You make no sense whatsoever. You talk in meaningless abstractions. You say that you're an atheist, but then try to use ridiculously lame 'religious' arguments. You've not even attempted to answer any of the fundamental questions on this issue that have been posed to you. You are a total waste of time. Get lost.

Actually if you would've read my posts (which you did not), you would've noticed that I was arguing from a religious standpoint, gave that up, then started arguing from an athiest standpoint. You are the one who should get lost--this forum isn't intended for name calling, but for DEBATING. Stop being a mindless supporter and realize that your opinions MAY BE WRONG.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus wrote: "No no, all I'm saying is, without life you have no free will, so life should be superior to it (used the wrong word). What I'm saying is without natural mindless biology--like your heart beating or diaphragm contracting we have no life and no free will, so natural mindless biology SHOULD be placed ahead of free will. And is your free will REALLY superior to natural mindless biology? If your heart stops beating no amount of thinking or moral/immoral descisions are going to make your heart start beating again."

AH, but we have DEMONSTRATED superiority by inventing medicine. TO TOTALLY ACCEPT natural mindless biology is to ban all medical treatments, not just abortion. (You DO know that those treatments sometimes involve humans with no heartbeat for 20 minutes or so, don't you? Google for "Life After Life".) Humans refuse a ban on medicine because they CLAIM superiority over natural mindless biology, even if the claim is untrue. Abortion then becomes CONSISTENT WITH THE CLAIM.

But as I said, we DO demonstrate superiority. I think I recall a case of some Eastern mystic sealing himself into a box for a week, and using powers-of-mind-over-body to basically hibernate it out. I don't recall for certain that heart-stopping was part of it, but it may have been. I certainly thought it was impressive, when I read about it years ago. So, even if we don't all demonstrate THAT degree of superiority over natural mindless biology, the fact remains that the average well-developed human can be trained fairly quickly to exhibit some of it (per biofeedback gadgets), and so we DO have superiority over natural mindless biology. Also, here is a conundrum for you, heh heh (since I doubt I can find a link to that Eastern mystic, how about some Western mystics?):
http://www.marypages.com/IncorruptBodies.htm

{{got to run; back later}}

Err, you missed the point horribly. Free will CANNOT exist without our mindless biology. It CANNOT, no exceptions. If you are dead you do not have free will. The mind cannot exist without the body, but a body can exist without a mind.

As for the mystic business, it isn't a test of free will realy, more of a test of how much power our brains actually have over our bodies.

And, as for livefree claiming that I never answer any of the fundamental questions posed to me, I couldn't disagree more. I argue EVERY point that you bring up, whereas many of the points that I make are overlooked and not argued at all.

 

[steen]

Hmm... so is the killing of the mentally handicapped right, Hitler?

Hitler? He was the anti-choice dude.

But seriously, this is where I disagree with your arguement. Killing someone who does not have the brainpower for free will is still murder (because killing the mentally disabled is murder). Again, I believe that murder is the killing of another human being, regaurdless of mental capacity.

So you just ascribed capital punishment and war killings as murder, and also now are declaring that killing in self-defense is murder. You seem to have a very overgeneralized idea of murder; certainly way out of line with anybody else.

Yes, religion based arguements don't really hold water (though my lack of good knowledge in the Bible may have something to do with it).

Is that why you make arguments about souls, because they are not good arguments?

 

[steen]

No no, all I'm saying is, without life you have no free will, so life should be superior to it (used the wrong word). What I'm saying is without natural mindless biology--like your heart beating or diaphragm contracting we have no life and no free will, so natural mindless biology SHOULD be placed ahead of free will.

in which case your free will should be curbed, and you should be forced to give blood or your extra kidney if it could save a life. Are you REALLY advocating this?

 

[Brutus]

Hitler? He was the anti-choice dude.

No, nice try, but Hitler had institutions set up to systematically execute the mentally handicapped.

So you just ascribed capital punishment and war killings as murder, and also now are declaring that killing in self-defense is murder. You seem to have a very overgeneralized idea of murder; certainly way out of line with anybody else.

Although that is a nice point you bring up, it is completely irrelevant. His arguement was that only killing people who can choose between right and wrong is murder, so I brought up the fact that there are handicapped people who cannot choose between right and wrong (notice HIS DEFINITION OF MURDER IS FLAWED TOO, but you don't seem to bring that up).

Is that why you make arguments about souls, because they are not good arguments?

If you would've read all the posts (you did not, you're the moron here), you would've realized that I changed the basis on which we were arguing. Get the facts straight before you try and make fun of someone.

 

[steen]

Err, you missed the point horribly. Free will CANNOT exist without our mindless biology. It CANNOT, no exceptions. If you are dead you do not have free will. The mind cannot exist without the body, but a body can exist without a mind.

Which still doesn't give the body the right to control will.

 

[Brutus]

in which case your free will should be curbed, and you should be forced to give blood or your extra kidney if it could save a life. Are you REALLY advocating this?

Well, everyone should be forced to give blood on a regular basis for those who need it. As for being forced to give up a kidney to save a life, I'm unsure. If having one of your kidney's removed drastically shortens your life, then no, but if it does not, than yes.

 

[Brutus]

Which still doesn't give the body the right to control will.

Well yes, I can make the exact same argument against your beliefs, just because free will CAN control the body doesn't mean it should.

 

[steen]

No, nice try, but Hitler had institutions set up to systematically execute the mentally handicapped.

He ste up institutions for the Government to control the citizens every aspect of life, just like the prolifers seek to control every aspect of women's sexual lives.

If you would've read all the posts (you did not, you're the moron here),

I have read them. But by all means keep spewing your MORONIC LIES!

you would've realized that I changed the basis on which we were arguing. Get the facts straight before you try and make fun of someone.

Yes, you tried one argument for your cause and when it flopped, you went to the exact opposite. Pure sophistry, no position. As others have noted.