Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MichiganConservative
You are the one hung up on the soul thing. I have told you that whether there's a soul or not is immaterial to my thoughts on the matter. What's your problem with that? Can you not accept the possibility that the arguments you disagree with are not based on your preferred straw-man?

I know you're just looking to be told that whatever it is you've chosen is ok. Check out my first post on the thread where I said you can choose to live with principles or rationalizations. I guess you've chosen the latter.


I'm sorry not to have understood your position. I thought that you viewed the destruction of a blastosphere as immoral because it contains a soul. You are not correct that I am "looking to be told that whatever it is [I've] chosen is ok." I've not made any choice at all on the matter. I am trying to understand YOUR position to help inform my own opinion.

So far all I have gleaned from your postings are that you don't think whether a blastosphere has or has not a soul is relevant to whether it is moral or not to destroy it. What I don't understand is how you have come to beliee that it IS immoral to destroy a blastosphere. What line of reasoning informs your view on the matter?

I have tried to be polite in my postings to you, and I hope you will show me the same courtesy.

jas3
92 posted on 09/03/2006 4:36:55 PM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: jas3

From what I have learned about human development, fertilization is the most logical point to say "an individual human life has started." I do not draw a distinctino based on whether this occurs in vitro or in vivo, with a penis or with a turkey baster. From then on, it's a steady progression through normal development, if in the proper environment. I think it is silly to say that one embryo is less human if it is in a dish rather than a womb. I think that's as silly as saying a two-month old left outside on a cold winter night is less human than one tucked into a crib because one lived and one died. To me, those are arbitrary, irrational demarcations. I think environment, size, whether she's "wanted", and many other criteria are arbitrary and irrational to use to define a human being. I find people weak and emotion-driven when they use genes to select which kid to have.


100 posted on 09/03/2006 4:48:45 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson