Abortion as art

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could you answer my question?

Bacteria do not, even though having a life essence, have a HUMAN soul. They do not divide and grow into a human being. Where I will kill bacteria and even bugs in the name of convenience, I won't kill a human in the name of convenience...Ensoulment takes place at conception, and the intentional killing of an innocent human being is murder.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Ok, you do not believe in the existence of souls...What do we call this substance we call "I", the "consciousness" that exists inside our physical body carrying on all sorts of non-physical activity? The physical body without this "life essence" we call "I" is only physical matter. For example, when this "life force" is gone at death, the body, as only p ...[text shortened]... an, pg 130. If you are not happy with this citation, then I'll find something else.

Would be cool to have a link to it.

Consciousness is not possible without the human body and functioning brain. Damage or alter parts of the brain with drugs or physically and you can alter the consciousness of an individual. I see this as evidence that consciousness being a physical thing. Your brain creates its own reality based on input, and being highly intelligent organisms we are self conscious based on these inputs. Self awareness, the "I" is assumed by the brain based on experience. Babies up to 18 months do not tend to pass the mirror test, for example - they are still not fully self aware.


If I understand rightly you say that reasoning, self awareness etc is evidence for a soul. If a ball of cells is unable to reason, then I don't see how you can say it has a soul. Where's the evidence for it being more than just physical matter?

Originally posted by mrstabby
Would be cool to have a link to it.

Consciousness is not possible without the human body and functioning brain. Damage or alter parts of the brain with drugs or physically and you can alter the consciousness of an individual. I see this as evidence that consciousness being a physical thing. Your brain creates its own reality based on input, and being ...[text shortened]... ou can say it has a soul. Where's the evidence for it being more than just physical matter?

Certainly,you must consider reasoning to be capable of demonstrating the obviousness, that is, evidence, of a viewpoint, or you wouldn't be using it. Neither would I.

I agree with you that you can alter the consciouness by altering the brain, but the brain is the physical organ of the meta-physical mind. They are somehow inextricably linked, for a time.

You ask for evidence for something beyond mere physicality...Ok...Rocks are physical matter, the body is physical matter. Our body, physical matter, is for a time, "alive", the rock never is. There is a "something" that makes the difference between a rock and a living human body, both being physical matter. I am demonstrating that there is a "something" that is present independent of physicality in humans. I am calling that something soul.

Again...there is a "something", a "consciouness", an "intelligence" that is the difference between a "living" physical body and a dead physical body. Here is my big question...How do you explain that "something" that is here and then gone in purely physical terms?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could you answer my question?

Did I answer your concerns? If not. please let me know.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Certainly,you must consider reasoning to be capable of demonstrating the obviousness, that is, evidence, of a viewpoint, or you wouldn't be using it. Neither would I.

I agree with you that you can alter the consciouness by altering the brain, but the brain is the physical organ of the meta-physical mind. They are somehow inextricably linked, for a tim ...[text shortened]... u explain that "something" that is here and then gone in purely physical terms?

From a purely philosophical point of view, why can't rocks be alive? Maybe rocks do have souls and have a purpose. If you define a soul as what makes us intelligent, a rock may be a genius. But it lacks the physical capabilities to carry this out.
However, withdrawing from such a tedious topic- rocks- maybe we could get back onto the point. In my opinion abortion is genocide. The end.

Originally posted by no1marauder
rhemalogos: God in the Old Testament stated the punishment for killing an unborn child was death.

Cite the chapter and verse.

On the contrary, in Exodus 21:22 the OT clearly states that causing a miscarriage isn't murder:

22 [b]And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

In looking into the meaning of Ex 21:22-25, here is what I found. The word "fruit" in Ex 21 is the Hebrew "yeled" meaning a child, born or unborn. I say born or unborn because "yeled" is used in other places in the OT to mean a child already born, eg Sam 12:19 in contrast to it's use for unborn in Ex 21. This is so because God did not differentiate between and born and unborn child, they were both children.

THe word "depart" in Ex 21 is Hebrew "yatsa" which has many different shades of meaning. "Yatsa" can mean "depart", but in this context, I beleive, it can mean also mean "issue out". It does NOT mean miscarriage. Another Hebrew word, "shakol", is the word for miscarriage and is used in Hosea 9:14. Since Ex 21 is not talking about a miscarriage, then is talking about a premature birth.

With these definitions in mind, Ex 21:22-25 reads like this:

22. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her "fruit"(unborn child) "depart"(issue out) from her, and yet no mischief follow(harm to the prematurely born child or the woman): he shall be surely punished, according as the womans's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23. If any mishcief(harm to the prematurely born baby or woman) then thou shalt give life for life,

23. eye for eye, tooth for tooth....

Originally posted by rhemalogos
In looking into the meaning of Ex 21:22-25, here is what I found. The word "fruit" in Ex 21 is the Hebrew "yeled" meaning a child, born or unborn. I say born or unborn because "yeled" is used in other places in the OT to mean a child already born, eg Sam 12:19 in contrast to it's use for unborn in Ex 21. This is so because God did not differentiate betwee thou shalt give life for life,

23. eye for eye, tooth for tooth....

That's nonsensical; why would someone "surely be punished" for not causing any harm??? You also seem to forget that the Hebrews definitely did not consider the fetus anything BUT part of the mother.

BTW, where did you cut and paste that from?

The Jewish view is this:

Feldman notes that

the abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, ubbar yerekh immo, which phrase is a counterpart of the Latin pars viscerum matris. That is, the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity. This designation says nothing about the morality of abortion; rather, it defines ownership, for example, in the case of an embryo found in a purchased animal. As intrinsic to its mother's body, it belongs to the buyer. In the religious conversion of a pregnant woman, her unborn child is automatically included and requires no further ceremony. Nor does it have power of acquisition; gifts made on its behalf are not binding. These and similar points mean only that the fetus has no "juridical personality," but say nothing about the right of abortion. This turns rather on whether feticide is or is not homicide. (81-82)
Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."

The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth. If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.) The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb. The fetus in the womb, says Rashi, classic commentator on the Bible and Talmud, is lav nefish hu, not a person, until he comes into the world. Feticide, then, does not constitute homicide, and the basis for denying it capital-crime status in Jewish law - even for those rabbis who may have wanted to rule otherwise - is scriptural. Alongside the above text is another one in Exodus that reads: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess...But if harm befall [her], then shalt thou give life for life" (21:22). The Talmud makes this verse's teaching explicit: Only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a woman to miscarry. Note also that though the abortion spoken of here is accidental, it contrasts with the homicide (of the mother) which is also accidental. Even unintentional homicide cannot be expiated by a monetary fine. (82)

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Certainly,you must consider reasoning to be capable of demonstrating the obviousness, that is, evidence, of a viewpoint, or you wouldn't be using it. Neither would I.

I agree with you that you can alter the consciouness by altering the brain, but the brain is the physical organ of the meta-physical mind. They are somehow inextricably linked, for a tim ...[text shortened]... u explain that "something" that is here and then gone in purely physical terms?

There are physical differences between someone who's brain-dead and someone who isn't, namely the cessation of signals between neurons, which are as far as I know are always present when consciousness is assumed.

My guess from previous conversations I've had about this is that when the exact mechanism for consciousness is unknown, you get to the conclusion that it must be metaphysical, whereas I will reach the conclusion that it is physical, but as yet not entirely determined.

Originally posted by mrstabby
There are physical differences between someone who's brain-dead and someone who isn't, namely the cessation of signals between neurons, which are as far as I know are always present when consciousness is assumed.

My guess from previous conversations I've had about this is that when the exact mechanism for consciousness is unknown, you get to the conclusi ...[text shortened]... whereas I will reach the conclusion that it is physical, but as yet not entirely determined.

I believe you equated life with consciouness, ie the presence of neural activity in the brain. Electrical activity is detectable in the unborn baby brain by 44 days into pregnancy and that is only what our limited science can detect...So you are saying the unborn is a human being at that time...But human life begins at conception. How can the human zygote divide if it is not alive? How can the zygote be considered as anything but human since it grows into a human? A plum seed does not grow into an avacado tree.

Where do you get such unshakeable faith that the universe is purely physical? Physics, the study of how the universe works, does not say non-physical things do not exist. Physics distinguishes between matter(physical) and energy(non-physical), inspite of their relationship.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
I believe you equated life with consciouness, ie the presence of neural activity in the brain. Electrical activity is detectable in the unborn baby brain by 44 days into pregnancy and that is only what our limited science can detect...So you are saying the unborn is a human being at that time...But human life begins at conception. How can the human zygot ...[text shortened]... distinguishes between matter(physical) and energy(non-physical), inspite of their relationship.

Did you ever here of Energy = mass X speed of light squared? Energy is certainly not "non-physical".

Originally posted by rhemalogos
I believe you equated life with consciouness, ie the presence of neural activity in the brain. Electrical activity is detectable in the unborn baby brain by 44 days into pregnancy and that is only what our limited science can detect...So you are saying the unborn is a human being at that time...But human life begins at conception. How can the human zygot ...[text shortened]... distinguishes between matter(physical) and energy(non-physical), inspite of their relationship.

I was going by your equating of a soul to consciousness (as it was the only evidence you provided). Are souls involved any more or are we going from the angle that it's human life that's sacred, not the soul.
Are reflex actions evidence of consciousness? You can program a machine to do that. Consciousness would be the point where the fetus can experience stimuli, not merely a cause and effect process.

I don't have an unshakable faith that everything is purely physical, but I'm not about to say that something exists because there's the possibility of it being there, but I'm not going to deny it the possibility. In the meantime I'm going on what we know, not what we don't know.

In order to have rights and responsibilities, you need to be conscious. If a baby is to be given the same rights as humans then it shall also have the same responsibilities, 1 being not to parasite nutrients and invade the body. Inducing a miscarriage is an exercise of the right to be free from a parasite.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Did you ever here of Energy = mass X speed of light squared? Energy is certainly not "non-physical".

I am acquainted with E=mc2, that is why I said "inspite of their relationship"...So, again, physicists still make a differentiation between matter(physical) and energy(non-physical). The fact that one can become the other, does not shake my theology because God(non-physical) created physical existence and there by manifested non-physical in physical.

Einstein, who is credited with the discovery of E=mc2, believed in God. From what I understand of physics, any "scientifically" honest physicist, will at this point in physics, admit physics does not state: "Non-physical matter does not exist".
If physics, the study how the universe works, is truly able to measure the full measure of existence, they will find there is a "something" that is meta-physical. It is a matter of faith in the truth.

Why are you so sure that energy is purely physical?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's nonsensical; why would someone "surely be punished" for not causing any harm??? You also seem to forget that the Hebrews definitely did not consider the fetus anything BUT part of the mother.

BTW, where did you cut and paste that from?

The Jewish view is this:

Feldman notes that

the abortion question in tal //caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

Your knowledge of scripture is astounding. What is equally as astounding, however, is your apparent disregard for the following scriptures.

Isaiah 49:1,5 Before I was born the Lord called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.....and now the Lord says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..."

Jeremiah 1:4-5 "The word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

There is a profound departure from the view that the mother has sole ownership of the unborn. Why do you make no mention of it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's nonsensical; why would someone "surely be punished" for not causing any harm??? You also seem to forget that the Hebrews definitely did not consider the fetus anything BUT part of the mother.

BTW, where did you cut and paste that from?

The Jewish view is this:

Feldman notes that

the abortion question in tal //caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

Let me touch upon the Torah since it is "related" to the Bible:

I have not read the the Torah itself, but I believe the Torah does not permit abortion of the unborn at any whim of the mother, treating the baby as a wart or whatever.

The Torah gives the unborn baby SOME status as a human being and FULL human status at birth. Because of the partial human status of the "fetus" before birth, the Torah states there has to be a compelling reason for a woman to abort. A quote from a Torah website states, "As a general rule abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother...", the article goes on to mention some threats to the mother's life: www.aish,com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp. This article is about a 10 minute read or less and is VERY informative.

The second web site I found: www.torah.org/quanda/seequanda.php?id=176 takes all of 15 seconds to read. I could detect no pro-abortion or pro-life bias on either web site, only intent to explain the Torah.

The website you quoted to me: http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism/html, article 11, paragraph #3 states the Jewish "phrase 'ubbar yerekeh immo'(the fetus is deemed as part of it's mother) says nothing about the morality of abortion, rather it defines ownership."

So the point so far is: These three web sites do not say the Torah does permit abortion at the whim of conveniece. The two web sites I gave very specifically state there has to be a compelling reason to abort a baby.In spite of these poskim's(Rabbis qualified to decide matters of Jewish law) opinion the unborn baby has only partial human status, I say"The unborn has full human status at conception".

As far as what scripture says, I have already given you my belief.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's nonsensical; why would someone "surely be punished" for not causing any harm??? You also seem to forget that the Hebrews definitely did not consider the fetus anything BUT part of the mother.

BTW, where did you cut and paste that from?

The Jewish view is this:

Feldman notes that

the abortion question in tal ...[text shortened]... //caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

I misspelled the correct address of one of the web sites I gave. The correct address is www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=176. Like I said it takes all of 15 seconds to read.