Originally posted by rhemalogos🙄
How other people view their personal autonomy matters very much to us all. John Dillinger, and I am not referring to anyone else but him, and his views of personal autonomy affected some people very much in a negative way. His personal autonomy had to be "bothered" for the good of society. A lot of peoples personal autonomy has to be "bothered" every day ...[text shortened]... hat allows innocent, defenseless infants to be murdered is definitely on the slippery slope.
2 edits
Originally posted by rhemalogosrhemalogos: Ensoulment takes place at conception.
Since you raised several different objections, I will answer them one by one, beginning with the first:
1. A is not B and never will be. A is a and B is b.
2. All throughout the Bible, OT and NT, God, the GREAT analogy maker and LOGICIAN, compares us to the seeds of plants,e.g. John 8:37 to grab one out of the air. HE likes this analogy of compari ...[text shortened]... man being. Tobacco leaves, as spleens, are only a part of the whole, but the seed, the embryo...
Evidence supporting this is ............... what? If that is true, most souls never become sentient. This fact and the resulting theological implications were raised long ago in this thread: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39420&page=1
Originally posted by whodeyThe difficulty here lies in including factors such as contraception, sexual education, attitudes towards sex, cultural pressures... So much to choose from...
And you are welcomed to your beliefs.
Do you really think that abortions were done at the same rate today as in ancient times? Unfortunatly we have no records regarding this one way or the other but I think I presented my reasoning well. Perhaps the other side could give reasons why the abortion rate was the same back then. Who knows, maybe they were secretly performing abortions in the privacy of their homes in mass numbers. Who knew?
I guess better questions to ask might be more along the lines of "what do we have today that might increase or decrease abortion rates?". I don't think it's very relevant to look at thousands of years ago as a single variable seeing as almost all the other variables are different too, depending on where you look in the world.
One reason the abortion rate may be higher than you'd expect in ancient times is less reliable contraception resulting in more unwanted pregnancies.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOriginally posted by me
...I don't agree, however, that the soul or mind is just the name for the workings of our brain. This conclusion does not follow--although it seem to--from the soul or mind being causally dependent on the brain, an obvious fact. "Workings", by definition, are something that the brain does. But "workings" do not imply felt experience: that is, you can ...[text shortened]... it isn't clear that the "workings" of the brain suffice to account for the soul or mind.
How we define what we are, who we are? All feeling and thoughts, memories and emotions are the works of our brain - that is, that's what we found out yet . "Soul" is merely a fancy name for the workings of our brain - as far as we know .
Having that in mind (no pun intended), "ensoulment" cannot take place before you have a working Central Nervous System (CNS).
---
Maybe the soul exists beyond the workings of the brain. As far as we know yet, no, and there is no reason to think otherwise, at this time.
Originally posted by whodeyI think that abortions are more common today than in the past.
And you are welcomed to your beliefs.
Do you really think that abortions were done at the same rate today as in ancient times? Unfortunatly we have no records regarding this one way or the other but I think I presented my reasoning well. Perhaps the other side could give reasons why the abortion rate was the same back then. Who knows, maybe they were secretly performing abortions in the privacy of their homes in mass numbers. Who knew?
I do not think that their relative past prevalence has anything to do with making aborts less (or more) ethical.
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusDon't let him off the hook; he didn't merely claim that abortion was more common now, he said:
I think that abortions are more common today than in the past.
I do not think that their relative past prevalence has anything to do with making aborts less (or more) ethical.
whodey: I think that such an idea [abortion] would be completely foreign in Biblical times, therefore, it is hard to get a grasp on how they would approach the subject. In fact, I doubt they even contemplated it [abortion] at all.
This is manifestly untrue.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, it is untrue, as can be read in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
Don't let him off the hook; he didn't merely claim that abortion was more common now, he said:
whodey: I think that such an idea [abortion] would be completely foreign in Biblical times, therefore, it is hard to get a grasp on how they would approach the subject. In fact, I doubt they even contemplated it [abortion] at all.
This is manifestly untrue.
However, I do not belive that's relevant. They also had slavery back then. If any, the rise in number of abortions tells us about the strengthening of human rights (or women's rights, in this case)
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the fetus were a person, its right to life would stem from its personhood. (Note: I am not stating that the fetus is a person.)
A non-viable fetus has no "right to life". What would be the source of such a right? Certainly Nature has left it totally inside a person's body. Where has it gained the "right" to force a person to sustain it inside that person's body? Do the germs that cause bad breath have a "right to life", also? Or a tapeworm?
My hypothetical example--whose relevance you summarily dismiss--is designed to illustrate the following general point: it does not follow that, merely because one being, say X, is biologically dependent upon another being, say Y, that X has the right to kill Y.
In addition, I would claim, Y must lack personhood. This is an intrinsic condition that must be satisfied. I also believe there are further extrinsic conditions that must be satisfied: we can go into them later.
I suspect you half agree with me about Y also needing to lack personhood for abortion to be morally justified. After all, tapeworms and germs lack personhood; but it's not clear that germs lack viability outside my body. I take it you don't wish to deny the microbial transmission of disease.
You maintain that personhood is a slippery concept. Agreed. But so is viability. Viability depends upon what technology or support is possible in principle and is available in practice. It follows that viability really isn't an intrinsic property of the fetus, but is also heavily a function of external circumstances. For that matter, are babies really viable? Suppose I don't breastfeed them* when no other sources of sustenance are available. They can't fend for themselves, being biologically dependent on milk from my teat. Do they loose their right to life because of their limited autonomy?
* This is another hypothetical, as I'm male. Will you dismiss it too?
Originally posted by RetrovirusYes, there is reason to believe otherwise, for the reasons I gave.
Originally posted by me
How we define what we are, who we are? All feeling and thoughts, memories and emotions are the works of our brain - that is, [b] that's what we found out yet . "Soul" is merely a fancy name for the workings of our brain - as far as we know .
Having that in mind (no pun intended), "ensoulment" cannot take place ...[text shortened]... brain. As far as we know yet, no, and there is no reason to think otherwise, at this time.[/b]
Concisely: the physical workings of the brain causally underlie selfhood and consciousness; but it is not clear they are identical with it. There is no reason to assume they are identical with it because they causally underlie it. Indeed, if X causally underlies Y, this guarantees that X is not the same thing as Y.
Originally posted by no1marauderEnsoulment, if it exists, cannot only take place at conception. If it did, then identical twins, who form when the zygote divides, would either have to decide who gets the one original soul, or would have to forego souls altogether--both possibilities that partisans of ensoulment would surely deny.
rhemalogos: Ensoulment takes place at conception.
Evidence supporting this is ............... what? If that is true, most souls never become sentient. This fact and the resulting theological implications were raised long ago in this thread: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39420&page=1
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeCan you please elaborate?
Yes, there is reason to believe otherwise, for the reasons I gave.
Concisely: the physical workings of the brain causally underlie selfhood and consciousness; but it is not clear they are identical with it. There is no reason to assume they are identical with it because they causally underlie it. Indeed, if X causally underlies Y, this guarantees that X is not the same thing as Y.
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThe animating principle causing the zygote to begin growing and assuming a life of its own, inside of mom, is the soul. We know this because of what the zygote eventuyally grows into. A human being with a soul, the soul continuing to be our animating force. The union of soul and body take place at conception.
Ensoulment, if it exists, cannot only take place at conception. If it did, then identical twins, who form when the zygote divides, would either have to decide who gets the one original soul, or would have to forego souls altogether--both possibilities that partisans of ensoulment would surely deny.
Twins fighting over one soul? I don't believe God has a power or wisdom problem resolving the skirmish considering what He has done so far with the spiritual and physical universe.
Originally posted by RetrovirusDefining who we are;
Originally posted by me
How we define what we are, who we are? All feeling and thoughts, memories and emotions are the works of our brain - that is, [b] that's what we found out yet . "Soul" is merely a fancy name for the workings of our brain - as far as we know .
Having that in mind (no pun intended), "ensoulment" cannot take place ...[text shortened]... brain. As far as we know yet, no, and there is no reason to think otherwise, at this time.[/b]
The soul is made up of the mind, will and emotions. The soul also has lower functioning capacities such as sustaining the body.
The body contains the soul, which can exist apart from the body, but the body cannot exist without the soul.
The physical body contains the soul as the physical organ of the brain contains the supernatural mind.
Originally posted by rhemalogosSo this soul is a tangible thing then? It is well defined? Our will, emotions and mind, do dogs have souls? They have will, mind and emotions......
Defining who we are;
The soul is made up of the mind, will and emotions. The soul also has lower functioning capacities such as sustaining the body.
The body contains the soul, which can exist apart from the body, but the body cannot exist without the soul.
The physical body contains the soul as the physical organ of the brain contains the supernatural mind.
A child before a certain point of development has no mind, or will, or emotion since the brain doesn't exist thus the ball of cells doesn't have the capacity to have a mind or will power.
Its proven that emotion, will and mind are all located within the brain by among other thing the fact that people with emotional or mental conditions generally have different brain configurations to a "normal" (average) human.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOne can't lose a right once they have it.
If the fetus were a person, its right to life would stem from its personhood. (Note: I am not stating that the fetus is a person.)
My hypothetical example--whose relevance you summarily dismiss--is designed to illustrate the following general point: it does not follow that, merely because one being, say X, is biologically dependent upon another being ...[text shortened]... limited autonomy?
* This is another hypothetical, as I'm male. Will you dismiss it too?
Since I already stated I don't agree with the personhood argument, you may "suspect" that I half-agree with you but you are wrong. "Personhood" is an illusionary concept.
You are committing the Fallacy of Composition as regards the word "viable". Is this instance, a "non-viable" fetus is one that cannot survive outside the mother's womb. So, yes, babies are "viable" by definition. Like whodey, you are confusing the ability to have an existence outside of a person's body with some type of ability to be able to meet all of your biological needs on your own. But they are manifestly different. An infant has no "right" to any particular "teat" in your example or else wetnursing or adoption would be a violation of this "right". It's right to life is not dependent on one other's persons actions or inactions as would a "right to life" for a non-viable fetus be.
The facts of fetal development do create a limit for viability (absent extraordinary medical measures); lungs aren't sufficiently developed until 22 weeks to give any chance of survival. All "personhood" debates wind up doing is trying to find some point in fetal development where it is enough like an average human being to call it such. This is pointless in my view.