Abortion - An Issue of Rights, Morals, and Sensibility

[manu1959]

Prove to me otherwise.


A

you still trying to turn people away from religion? you are as bad as the door to door bible thumpers you abhore :funnyface

 

[no1tovote4]

Prove to me otherwise.


A

Prove to me otherwise.

Either way it cannot be done and you know it. To attempt to discount people's spiritual belief in such a debate is simply ignoring a reality and detrimental to your own goal. In creating an answer that people could agree on for abortion it would be necessary to answer the religious questions as well or you simply have set yourself up for disappointment.

 

[dilloduck]

Prove to me otherwise.

Either way it cannot be done and you know it. To attempt to discount people's spiritual belief in such a debate is simply ignoring a reality and detrimental to your own goal. In creating an answer that people could agree on for abortion it would be necessary to answer the religious questions as well or you simply have set yourself up for disappointment.

also read tip 2 from your article at About.com--maybe you just forgot your own advice here a bit.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/activism/ht/ACT072503.htm

 

[CivilLiberty]

How long did people believe the scientific thought that the world was flat until proven wrong?

Scientific thought? The "flat earth is the center of the universe" was a concept pushed by the church who worked very hard to suppress the science that proved them wrong.

We see a similar pattern today with so called "Intelligent Design".

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

you still trying to turn people away from religion? you are as bad as the door to door bible thumpers you abhore :funnyface

I'm not trying to turn people "away" from religion or spirituality, I'm trying to turn them "toward" the truth. Apparently, I'm failing.


A

 

[dilloduck]

Scientific thought? The "flat earth is the center of the universe" was a concept pushed by the church who worked very hard to suppress the science that proved them wrong.

We see a similar pattern today with so called "Intelligent Design".

A

It certainly wasn't CREATED by the church

 

[CivilLiberty]

Prove to me otherwise.

Either way it cannot be done and you know it. To attempt to discount people's spiritual belief in such a debate is simply ignoring a reality and detrimental to your own goal. In creating an answer that people could agree on for abortion it would be necessary to answer the religious questions as well or you simply have set yourself up for disappointment.

In another related thread, in another forum, I postulated the following:
--
This soul/inhabit/body thing is a hard one to nail down. But I'd say that if our conscience and self awareness is the embodiment of the soul, then our sense of it certainly resides in the brain. If the brain is the house for the soul, then can a mass of cells without a brain house a soul?
--

Yes, this is in the sphere of religion, philosophy, and spirituality.


My personal religion and spirituality may claim one of the following:

1) The soul, if it is individualized, and if it is inhabiting a body/animal, must find it's home within the brain. And without a brain to inhabit, it cannot "move in" so to speak.

2) The soul, in the ethereal sense, is nothing but a life force energy, and is the same for all living things - from a microbe to an elephant to a human. It ebbs and flows like tides or wind. It's presence then in the zygote is no different that it's presence in a leaf of lettuce or a bird in flight.



My personal religion and philosophy may be different than yours - and yes, it is something that cannot be quantified nor ascertained.

My article was an attempt to avoid the religious aspect of the argument and concentrate on the science or aspects that were more clearly definable.


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

In another related thread, in another forum, I postulated the following:
--
This soul/inhabit/body thing is a hard one to nail down. But I'd say that if our conscience and self awareness is the embodiment of the soul, then our sense of it certainly resides in the brain. If the brain is the house for the soul, then can a mass of cells without a brain house a soul?
--

Yes, this is in the sphere of religion, philosophy, and spirituality.


My personal religion and spirituality may claim one of the following:

1) The soul, if it is individualized, and if it is inhabiting a body/animal, must find it's home within the brain. And without a brain to inhabit, it cannot "move in" so to speak.

2) The soul, in the ethereal sense, is nothing but a life force energy, and is the same for all living things - from a microbe to an elephant to a human. It ebbs and flows like tides or wind. It's presence then in the zygote is no different that it's presence in a leaf of lettuce or a bird in flight.



My personal religion and philosophy may be different than yours - and yes, it is something that cannot be quantified nor ascertained.

My article was an attempt to avoid the religious aspect of the argument and concentrate on the science or aspects that were more clearly definable.


Andy

Perhaps you should remove the word "moral" from the title of your article then.

 

[CivilLiberty]

also read tip 2 from your article at About.com--maybe you just forgot your own advice here a bit.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/activism/ht/ACT072503.htm

I think I do understand both sides of the issue. Your contention is that a zygote is a human life deserving of all the rights and protections afforded a human person.

That is your position, yes? The thrust of my argument is that belief is based on certain faiths or has other flaws, and that we can find a point later in development that we can, in a more universal way, say that differentiation into a human person has begun.

My point is that DNA is not enough - it's only an instruction set.

My point is that the appearance of appendages, and primitive organs is not enough - all other primates/mammals are similar or the same.

My point is that the real differentiating factor in our higher brain. Not the primitive stem that forms after a month and a half, but the higher brain that begins to take shape at 6 months.

So, I'm drawing what I find to be a sensible, rational, moral position based not only on science, but on my own religion and spirituality.

Nevertheless, I have attempted to keep religion out of the picture and focus on something more concrete. Maybe it's not possible to do so with this topic.

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

It certainly wasn't CREATED by the church

It ABSOLUTELY wasn't created by science.


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flatearth.htm


A

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm going to duck the issue of viability and when a fetus is actually considered a human being. I lack the knowledge both biblically and medically to make an educated statement on that.

But to put the argument into an existing context, look at the California law which allows a person who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of murder.

Isn't it more than just a little hypocritical for the state to say on the one hand that a woman may kill a fetus because it isn't human and has no rights while on the other hand charging someone with murder if they should be responsible for the death of that fetus?

So it seems to me that the first thing needed here is some consistency. Once we achieve that, perhaps we can proceed to an argument based on a firmer foundation.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Perhaps you should remove the word "moral" from the title of your article then.

Hmmm. Not sure. To do so would imply that I believe that morals are the exclusive domain of religion, and I don't think that religion and morals are inseparable - in fact, I think one could make the case that religion and moral values are indeed separate issues.


A

 

[dilloduck]

It ABSOLUTELY wasn't created by science.


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flatearth.htm


A

From your link:
"This is hardly surprising. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.

The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The Babylonians considered the earth essentially flat, with a continental mass surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting upon the ocean's waters (and perhaps also upon pillars). Sweet (salt-free) waters below the Earth sometimes manifest themselves as springs. The Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of round. Indeed, it was shaped much like an old-fashioned steamer trunk. (The Egyptians pictured the goddess Nut stretched across the sky as the enclosing dome.) What was the Hebrew view of the universe? "


cosmology----science !!!

 

[dilloduck]

Hmmm. Not sure. To do so would imply that I believe that morals are the exclusive domain of religion, and I don't think that religion and morals are inseparable - in fact, I think one could make the case that religion and moral values are indeed separate issues.


A

So where was the morality of abortion discussed in youe article ?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm going to duck the issue of viability and when a fetus is actually considered a human being. I lack the knowledge both biblically and medically to make an educated statement on that.

But to put the argument into an existing context, look at the California law which allows a person who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of murder.

Isn't it more than just a little hypocritical for the state to say on the one hand that a woman may kill a fetus because it isn't human and has no rights while on the other hand charging someone with murder if they should be responsible for the death of that fetus?

So it seems to me that the first thing needed here is some consistency. Once we achieve that, perhaps we can proceed to an argument based on a firmer foundation.

(bump)
sorry I stomped on your helpful post.

 

[no1tovote4]

In another related thread, in another forum, I postulated the following:
--
This soul/inhabit/body thing is a hard one to nail down. But I'd say that if our conscience and self awareness is the embodiment of the soul, then our sense of it certainly resides in the brain. If the brain is the house for the soul, then can a mass of cells without a brain house a soul?
--

Yes, this is in the sphere of religion, philosophy, and spirituality.


My personal religion and spirituality may claim one of the following:

1) The soul, if it is individualized, and if it is inhabiting a body/animal, must find it's home within the brain. And without a brain to inhabit, it cannot "move in" so to speak.

2) The soul, in the ethereal sense, is nothing but a life force energy, and is the same for all living things - from a microbe to an elephant to a human. It ebbs and flows like tides or wind. It's presence then in the zygote is no different that it's presence in a leaf of lettuce or a bird in flight.



My personal religion and philosophy may be different than yours - and yes, it is something that cannot be quantified nor ascertained.

My article was an attempt to avoid the religious aspect of the argument and concentrate on the science or aspects that were more clearly definable.


Andy

You postulate but do not prove, the whole point and substance of my post is that they cannot prove their religion any more than you can disprove it.

How people believe will not be changed by a postulate about the brain being the soul of a person. Those who believe in a religion with a God will consistently oppose you and you have no evidence to the contrary just as they have no evidence but Faith.

In my belief it is life itself that is that part of you which is the Amidha Buddha or greater compassion. Therefore that which lives is inhabited by a soul. Without answering the major question of people's beliefs, but simply trying to convert them to yours you will untimately find yourself on the losing side of the spectrum when attempting to gain a middle ground on which all people can agree.

 

[CivilLiberty]

But to put the argument into an existing context, look at the California law which allows a person who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of murder.

Isn't it more than just a little hypocritical for the state to say on the one hand that a woman may kill a fetus because it isn't human and has no rights while on the other hand charging someone with murder if they should be responsible for the death of that fetus?

I agree that it's hypocritical, and I don't fully agree with that law - it is a law that found ENORMOUS support from the anti-abortion groups, who are attempting to develop a series of legal precedents with the aim of confusing the issue as you so aptly described.

The California law (and many other states) applies after a certain stage of development, for instance the California law does NOT apply to embryos and zygotes.

This is not true of all state fetal homicide laws.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/parentingfamily/a/aafetalhomicide.htm


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

cosmology----science !!!

Biblical cosmology - NOT science.


A

 

[dilloduck]

Biblical cosmology - NOT science.


A

the egyptian bible ???

 

[CivilLiberty]

Without answering the major question of people's beliefs, but simply trying to convert them to yours you will untimately find yourself on the losing side of the spectrum when attempting to gain a middle ground on which all people can agree.

Hmmm. Where does one find this middle ground.

I believe there can be a middle ground that fills the canyon between "red" and "blue". I think abortion is the "hottest" of the hot button topics, and one of the most divisive.

Is the middle ground composed of spirituality? Religion? Science?

I avoid religion and spirituality because it is an unprovable belief, and laws should be made only on provable truths.

Our consciousness if provably housed in the cerebellum. Our consciousness is the thing that makes human life "more sacred" than other life. (I don't see anyone here up in arms about euthanizing stray cats and dogs for instance). With these two issues then, the embryo with no cerebellum development is not yet a "sacred" human life.

Regards


Andy