Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 We have no evidence that the bible is correct. We have no evidence that reincarnation exists. I'm not saying that neither of them do or are, I'm just saying that if we're holding a discussion about THIS world, about THIS life, then we need to base it on things that are evident and proveable. Otherwise, there's no point in debating the matter at all, because no level of logic or reasoned argument can stand up to a simple and insistent belief in a particular dogma. I'm not saying that to have faith in something one can not prove is wrong. But it is ridiculous to tell someone else who does not believe that particular thing (in this case, that God views abortion of all types as incorrect) that they should take your article of faith as reason to believe something they do not have faith in. Having said that, I do feel that aborting children because they are autistic is wrong and I oppose eugenics efforts in general, although I do see some logic in abortion in some circumstances (because of a terminal illness that will fairly definitely kill the child or if it is not a late term abortion unless there is a credible risk to the life of the mother or if it is not based on a desire to have a child of one particular sex or neurology). But I don't see the point in referring to the bible as a source here. What relevance do you think that has to this discussion for people who do not take that interpretation of it as an article of faith? > > Abortion in reality is not permanent. An aborted fetus always has > another chance to come back as another person. I know that had I been > aborted I would simply have made it into this world as someone else. I > might have had the opportunity to be born without all the handicaps that > have kept me in pain all my life. > > I might have had a far better chance at a great life. > > Ace > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > > > I have a solution to the problem which is fair and equitable for > all... > > 1) Ban abortion. There is a serious flaw in your reasoning. It may appear fair and reasonable to you, but that does not mean it is true. For many people it would be grossly unfair and no solution at all. You simply have no right to impose your ideals and values on others. That is never fair or equitable. Ace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 On 19 Jun 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > Considering there are 1.5 million abortions in the US each year, and > many of these pregnant moms are second, third, and fourth timers baby > killers ... If we can accept that these are babies at early term, and if there are people who accept abortion, then wouldn't it therefore be acceptable to also kill newborn babies? That way, we wouldn't be guessing about its condition by relying on embyro testing. I for one feel more comfortable with a distinction (e.g. " fœtus " ). That way, " allowing " babies to die would not logically follow. But regardless, " babies " are generally collectively infants and toddlers; not youths. " Unborn babies " , while a contradiction, would imply that the fœtus is full-term, therefore *almost* a baby. It is not yet capable of making life miserable for fellow passengers on an airplane. This matches the OED definition (ignoring terms like girlfriend, youngest in a family, etc.). If it's important to describe " life " then the proper term would be " life " , " living thing " , " human fœtus " , " human fœtus which possesses life " (or posesses life and a soul), or simply " soul " . - s - s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 On 19 Jun 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute. If these folks want > to spend roughly $5,000.00 on a test that may result in the > destruction of their own offspring, let them. Perhaps, but I'm old enough that, if I wanted offspring, then that would probably be with a woman over 35. Generally that means amniocentesis, but without the option of abortion, that means, " Fer-get it. She's too old. " Which is probably just as well, I suppose, since I'm looking to reproduce. - s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 > > " I for one feel more comfortable with a distinction (e.g. > " fœtus " ). That way, " allowing " babies to die would not > logically follow. But regardless, " babies " are generally > collectively infants and toddlers; not youths. " Unborn babies " , > while a contradiction, would imply that the fœtus is full-term, > therefore *almost* a baby. It is not yet capable of making life > miserable for fellow passengers on an airplane. This matches > the OED definition (ignoring terms like girlfriend, youngest in > a family, etc.). > > If it's important to describe " life " then the proper term would > be " life " , " living thing " , " human fœtus " , " human fœtus which > possesses life " (or posesses life and a soul), or simply " soul " . " I think it's our human puny values we put on a baby vs a fetus. If a mother is in labor and the baby is about to come out it's usually looked at as a baby. But what about a month before, several months before? Older cultures used the quickening, the time when the mother could feel the baby moving, as the time of life, but that's because they didn't have the technology we have today to see the fetus very young and moving but just not felt by the mother. How could we determine when the fetus/baby is a life? If it's a baby right before it comes out, yet is still in the womb, what is the exact time when it's a baby in the womb? Now they're finding that the fetuses are aware and responsive and can feel pain and other sensations. And how about when they recognize the mothers' and fathers' voices during ultrasound? They stop and listen when it's mother or father but not when it's a stranger. > > > > > - s > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 > > " I for one feel more comfortable with a distinction (e.g. > " fœtus " ). That way, " allowing " babies to die would not > logically follow. But regardless, " babies " are generally > collectively infants and toddlers; not youths. " Unborn babies " , > while a contradiction, would imply that the fœtus is full-term, > therefore *almost* a baby. It is not yet capable of making life > miserable for fellow passengers on an airplane. This matches > the OED definition (ignoring terms like girlfriend, youngest in > a family, etc.). > > If it's important to describe " life " then the proper term would > be " life " , " living thing " , " human fœtus " , " human fœtus which > possesses life " (or posesses life and a soul), or simply " soul " . " I think it's our human puny values we put on a baby vs a fetus. If a mother is in labor and the baby is about to come out it's usually looked at as a baby. But what about a month before, several months before? Older cultures used the quickening, the time when the mother could feel the baby moving, as the time of life, but that's because they didn't have the technology we have today to see the fetus very young and moving but just not felt by the mother. How could we determine when the fetus/baby is a life? If it's a baby right before it comes out, yet is still in the womb, what is the exact time when it's a baby in the womb? Now they're finding that the fetuses are aware and responsive and can feel pain and other sensations. And how about when they recognize the mothers' and fathers' voices during ultrasound? They stop and listen when it's mother or father but not when it's a stranger. > > > > > - s > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 In a message dated 6/21/2006 6:21:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes: When does a blob of tissue stop being something and starts being someone and then become a something blob of tissue again... I personally feel those points are marked by the presence of "self-aware" thought... By that way, I'm not prejudiced in favor of Carbon based Chemistry... A "self-aware" silicon chip would in my view deserve the same respect as any other life form...Ender I'm not so sure about self-aware machines being treat like humans simply because I don't think they will have any morality themselves. Not that they will necessarily be evil, but rather amoral. So, while we may value them, it is unlikely that they will value us. Most scientists seem to believe that they won't and we'll end up with a Terminator scenario. This is one reason I don't think we should allow drones and attack robots to be fully autonomous and certain not self-sustaining and servicing. If we make them like that, they could decide they don't need us at all, and realizing our fear of them might decide to kill us off to preserve themselves. It is probably only a matter of time before a supercomputer somewhere wakes up. How it reacts to us is an open guess. But I think we should cut back on wiring the world together, putting interconnected computers into every little thing. The further we go down that road, the easier it will be for such a machine to take control, which it could probably do more quickly than we could react to. If it took control of the financial networks, it could hold the world hostage. So, if we had paper backups and lots of secure, offline storage, we could still probably turn it off, though it would be expensive. Less interconnection would lessen its impact though. We'll see though. I think they'll make a machine that wakes up and kicks our butts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 I like your point of view... The unconditional belief in dogma is where people get themselves in trouble and cross the line between being a believer to being a fanatic... and they start to believe that their point of view is the " Will of God " that they are therefore justified in committing any sort of immoral act to achieve their end. Arguments that abortion is wrong be cause you may be killing the next Mozart or Einstein is invalid because the embryo could just as easily be the next Hitler or Dailmer... an embryo is potential many (most?) never implant. The choice of which embryos are allowed to gestate is in truth chance. Some embryos/fetuses spontaneously abort... Generally because there is something not " right " somewhere in the process. Should we use medical technology can " rescue " what nature decided should be terminated... If it's wrong to terminate the process; it seems that it's equally wrong to interfere with the process spontaneously terminating... When does a blob of tissue stop being something and starts being someone and then become a something blob of tissue again... I personally feel those points are marked by the presence of " self-aware " thought... By that way, I'm not prejudiced in favor of Carbon based Chemistry... A " self-aware " silicon chip would in my view deserve the same respect as any other life form... Ender At 08:21 PM 6/20/2006, you wrote: We have no evidence that the bible is correct. We have no evidence that reincarnation exists. I'm not saying that neither of them do or are, I'm just saying that if we're holding a discussion about THIS world, about THIS life, then we need to base it on things that are evident and proveable. Otherwise, there's no point in debating the matter at all, because no level of logic or reasoned argument can stand up to a simple and insistent belief in a particular dogma. I'm not saying that to have faith in something one can not prove is wrong. But it is ridiculous to tell someone else who does not believe that particular thing (in this case, that God views abortion of all types as incorrect) that they should take your article of faith as reason to believe something they do not have faith in. Having said that, I do feel that aborting children because they are autistic is wrong and I oppose eugenics efforts in general, although I do see some logic in abortion in some circumstances (because of a terminal illness that will fairly definitely kill the child or if it is not a late term abortion unless there is a credible risk to the life of the mother or if it is not based on a desire to have a child of one particular sex or neurology). But I don't see the point in referring to the bible as a source here. What relevance do you think that has to this discussion for people who do not take that interpretation of it as an article of faith? > > Abortion in reality is not permanent. An aborted fetus always has > another chance to come back as another person. I know that had I been > aborted I would simply have made it into this world as someone else. I > might have had the opportunity to be born without all the handicaps that > have kept me in pain all my life. > > I might have had a far better chance at a great life. > > Ace > _ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 I like your point of view... The unconditional belief in dogma is where people get themselves in trouble and cross the line between being a believer to being a fanatic... and they start to believe that their point of view is the " Will of God " that they are therefore justified in committing any sort of immoral act to achieve their end. Arguments that abortion is wrong be cause you may be killing the next Mozart or Einstein is invalid because the embryo could just as easily be the next Hitler or Dailmer... an embryo is potential many (most?) never implant. The choice of which embryos are allowed to gestate is in truth chance. Some embryos/fetuses spontaneously abort... Generally because there is something not " right " somewhere in the process. Should we use medical technology can " rescue " what nature decided should be terminated... If it's wrong to terminate the process; it seems that it's equally wrong to interfere with the process spontaneously terminating... When does a blob of tissue stop being something and starts being someone and then become a something blob of tissue again... I personally feel those points are marked by the presence of " self-aware " thought... By that way, I'm not prejudiced in favor of Carbon based Chemistry... A " self-aware " silicon chip would in my view deserve the same respect as any other life form... Ender At 08:21 PM 6/20/2006, you wrote: We have no evidence that the bible is correct. We have no evidence that reincarnation exists. I'm not saying that neither of them do or are, I'm just saying that if we're holding a discussion about THIS world, about THIS life, then we need to base it on things that are evident and proveable. Otherwise, there's no point in debating the matter at all, because no level of logic or reasoned argument can stand up to a simple and insistent belief in a particular dogma. I'm not saying that to have faith in something one can not prove is wrong. But it is ridiculous to tell someone else who does not believe that particular thing (in this case, that God views abortion of all types as incorrect) that they should take your article of faith as reason to believe something they do not have faith in. Having said that, I do feel that aborting children because they are autistic is wrong and I oppose eugenics efforts in general, although I do see some logic in abortion in some circumstances (because of a terminal illness that will fairly definitely kill the child or if it is not a late term abortion unless there is a credible risk to the life of the mother or if it is not based on a desire to have a child of one particular sex or neurology). But I don't see the point in referring to the bible as a source here. What relevance do you think that has to this discussion for people who do not take that interpretation of it as an article of faith? > > Abortion in reality is not permanent. An aborted fetus always has > another chance to come back as another person. I know that had I been > aborted I would simply have made it into this world as someone else. I > might have had the opportunity to be born without all the handicaps that > have kept me in pain all my life. > > I might have had a far better chance at a great life. > > Ace > _ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Ace spoke in two separate posts about his God and his belief about what happens to our souls when we die. My response was that if he was Christian, then his beliefs ought to be re-examined in accordance with Biblical text. Tom Administrator But I don't see the point in referring to the bible as a source here. What relevance do you think that has to this discussion for people who do not take that interpretation of it as an article of faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Ace spoke in two separate posts about his God and his belief about what happens to our souls when we die. My response was that if he was Christian, then his beliefs ought to be re-examined in accordance with Biblical text. Tom Administrator But I don't see the point in referring to the bible as a source here. What relevance do you think that has to this discussion for people who do not take that interpretation of it as an article of faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 And how far is their imposition of ideals and values on me? I didn't ask to make abortion legal. I don't WANT it legal. Yet it is! If they have a right to impose their ideals and values on me, I have a right to refute those ideals and values. Tom Administrator You simply have no right to impose your ideals and values on others. That is never fair or equitable. Ace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 And how far is their imposition of ideals and values on me? I didn't ask to make abortion legal. I don't WANT it legal. Yet it is! If they have a right to impose their ideals and values on me, I have a right to refute those ideals and values. Tom Administrator You simply have no right to impose your ideals and values on others. That is never fair or equitable. Ace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Read Brace New World by Aldous Huxley. All this was predicted decades ago. People once lived in fear that what he wrote would become reality. Our generation welcomes this " scientific progress. " Tom Administrator So one day soon, we could see factory/nurseries where custom kiddies are built from scratch, " fertilized " in an animal egg and gestated in an artificial womb. And people in the 70's though invetro-fertilization was a mess, what about fully synthetic humans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Read Brace New World by Aldous Huxley. All this was predicted decades ago. People once lived in fear that what he wrote would become reality. Our generation welcomes this " scientific progress. " Tom Administrator So one day soon, we could see factory/nurseries where custom kiddies are built from scratch, " fertilized " in an animal egg and gestated in an artificial womb. And people in the 70's though invetro-fertilization was a mess, what about fully synthetic humans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 On 22 Jun 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > And how far is their imposition of ideals and values on me? > > I didn't ask to make abortion legal. I don't WANT it legal. Yet it is! > > If they have a right to impose their ideals and values on me, I have a > right to refute those ideals and values. But doesn't that presume the legal default for the subject (abortion in this instance) is " illegal " ? In other words, a negative -- everything is illegal until it is made " legal " ? As to imposition of ideals, in the case of abortion, there is presumably a protected category, but there is no imposition of ideals and values on non-participants. So the issue is whether your ideals and values should be imposed on others. I may disagree with the particular value, but we do often impose such values, e.g., animal cruelty laws. But in both instances *not* making something illegal can have no direct effect on you unless you are part of the affected class. - s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 On 22 Jun 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > And how far is their imposition of ideals and values on me? > > I didn't ask to make abortion legal. I don't WANT it legal. Yet it is! > > If they have a right to impose their ideals and values on me, I have a > right to refute those ideals and values. But doesn't that presume the legal default for the subject (abortion in this instance) is " illegal " ? In other words, a negative -- everything is illegal until it is made " legal " ? As to imposition of ideals, in the case of abortion, there is presumably a protected category, but there is no imposition of ideals and values on non-participants. So the issue is whether your ideals and values should be imposed on others. I may disagree with the particular value, but we do often impose such values, e.g., animal cruelty laws. But in both instances *not* making something illegal can have no direct effect on you unless you are part of the affected class. - s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Ender said: " When does a blob of tissue stop being something start being someone & then become a something blob of tissue again...I personally feel those points are marked by the presence of self aware thought. " When does self-awareness begin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Ender said: " When does a blob of tissue stop being something start being someone & then become a something blob of tissue again...I personally feel those points are marked by the presence of self aware thought. " When does self-awareness begin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > > > Ace spoke in two separate posts about his God and his belief about what > happens to our souls when we die. > > My response was that if he was Christian, then his beliefs ought to be > re-examined in accordance with Biblical text. > Well I believe in God. I believe in souls. I am NOT a Christian. The main reason for this is that I know enough about the bible to know that it has no relevance to me. It has been reinterpreted so many times in so many different ways there is no way of knowing what was originally meant. Much of the bible, maybe all of it was written to a specific group of people in a specific situation. Things like " The Letters To The Corinthians " Well guess what, I am not a Corinthian and what was relevant to then more than 2000 years ago has long since lost any valid meaning. Biblical text as we know it is simply man's interpretation of another man's interpretation from a time when words had very different meanings in different languages. Ace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > > > And how far is their imposition of ideals and values on me? > > I didn't ask to make abortion legal. I don't WANT it legal. Yet it is! > > If they have a right to impose their ideals and values on me, I have a > right to refute those ideals and values. > No one is imposing anything on you. If you don't want an abortion then don't have one. Simple! Case closed! Ace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote: > > > And how far is their imposition of ideals and values on me? > > I didn't ask to make abortion legal. I don't WANT it legal. Yet it is! > > If they have a right to impose their ideals and values on me, I have a > right to refute those ideals and values. > A good comparison is this. I don't think it's fair to impose Christian ideals on me. I don't want them. I didn't ask for them and I don't believe in them. I have a right to my own spiritual believes. If you have a right to impose your ideals on me then I have a right to refute them. The bible and it's teaching is just one way of seeing God's laws and universe. It is not the only way. It's certainly not " The one true way " . I however don't subscribe to your ideals on this. I say live and let live. I will believe what I believe and will live my life accordingly. I will allow you the same rights. Please extend me the same courtesy. Ace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Ace wrote: " I say live and let live. " That's not true, Ace. You do not believe this even though you may say it. It is hypocritical of you to claim you believe something when your previous posts on the subject prove that, indeed, you do NOT. Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 ravenmagic2003 wrote: > > > Ace wrote: " I say live and let live. " > > That's not true, Ace. You do not believe this even though you may say > it. > > It is hypocritical of you to claim you believe something when your > previous posts on the subject prove that, indeed, you do NOT. > > Lately you have made it into a personal vendetta to distort everything I say and then disagree with your version. This says much more about you than it does me. You have no idea what I believe. To tell me it's not true that I believe something is hogwash. Ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Ace, I have never known Raven to personally attack anyone, I have seen you do that. Raven is only pointing out inconsistencies in what you are saying. You are the person that I see twisting other peoples words to mean what you want them to mean. I have asked you in private not to personally attack people. Now I will ask you publicaly please do not personally attack people. You have done it with Tom and are now doing it with Raven if It continues I will be forced to place you on moderation. Beth Co-Administrator " I say live and let live. " > > > > That's not true, Ace. You do not believe this even though you may say > > it. > > > > It is hypocritical of you to claim you believe something when your > > previous posts on the subject prove that, indeed, you do NOT. > > > > > Lately you have made it into a personal vendetta to distort everything I > say and then disagree with your version. This says much more about you > than it does me. > > You have no idea what I believe. To tell me it's not true that I believe > something is hogwash. > > Ace. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.