Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree

Self ^ | 5/12/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[Hank Kerchief]

If the first part were true, you wouldn't be here posting a number of times over a period of two days.

You are quite right. I've posted too much.

Hank

[WarSlut]

You can't see the principle, so I'll not bother to argue further.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

[WarSlut]

You are quite right. I've posted too much.

If that's the extent of your response, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Hank Kerchief]

There is no hope for me. I have lived a rich and varied life the world over and this is what works for me.

Since the purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it, you seem to have achieved, by default possibly, the very thing your mom tried to teach you.

I hope you continue to enjoy your life in your way. You are not without hope at all.

Hank

[wardaddy]

I'm content. I have learned not to trust happiness.

Nite!

[asformeandformyhouse]

I couln't find it in my Bible.

Oh you have a Bible? Great! Might I suggest a careful study of it. Since you interjected the Bible into our discussion, you might like to know that God has a different opionion than you do as to when PEOPLE begin.

Jeremiah 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee

In God's eyes there is a difference between a person and the ever-present tumor you're so fond of talking about. A careful study could show you the difference.

Pssst. Here's a hint: One of them has a soul.

[Diamond]

1) Its obvious that a zygote is not a person, anymore than a corpse is not a person

This analogy is a category fallacy. A corpse is always a dead body. A zygote, a one-celled body, is alive unless he dies. Thus he can be either alive or dead.

You still assert that your proposition that a zygote is not a person is obvious, while at the same time asserting that no one knows the definition of life. (How do you know that no one knows? Have you searched throughout the universe to determinie this 'fact'? Perhaps there is one person who does know that you haven't met yet. In any case, to assert with any certainty that 'know one knows' you would have to be omniscient.) A category fallacy and a self-refuting proposition do not constitute an adequate justification.

Cordially,

[Hank Kerchief]

God has a different opionion than you do as to when PEOPLE begin.

You mean this God?

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Psalm 137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Yes. That opinion is different than mine.

Is it your opnion that ripping up women with their unborn is a good thing?

Hank

[asformeandformyhouse]

Read closer.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Rebellion against God has consequences. Pray you never find out.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[MHGinTN]

bttt

[VOA]

didn't Lincoln say something like "some issues can only be settled in blood"?

[nosofar]

"The cannabilism analogy degrades this piece right from the get go. It won't persuade anyone that is not already persuaded. In any event, the whole debate turns on perceptions of just when a fetus, or something in a petri dish, should obtain legal protections. And unfortunately, that really isn't very susceptible to argument. It is more about a priori assumptions."


Pro-choicers must fall back on metaphysical arguments (the fetus is not a 'person') to support their case. When the facts are examined objectively, any reasonable person must admit that abortion kills a human life.

[nosofar]

"It is amazing that those who makes such claims are depending on the testimony of science, the very same science that says, people begin when they are born."



Science can take no stand on when a human becomes a 'person'. This is a philosophical and legal question. Scientists do generally agree that human life begins at conception.

[WomanofStandard]

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail

As pro-life as I am I still can't find the time to read the many articles you post so please, remove me from your ping list. Hopefully I will happen by the pro-life articles I am meant to see in my daily visits to FR.

[MHGinTN]

Scientists also base a good deal of testing for genetic diseases on the first axiom of embryology that an individual comes into existence at conception, else their tests would not be valid as diagnostic tools for individual human beings. As one debate brought out recently, "If you want to test a gold coin in front of you, for gold content, you don't test a silver coin in another room to determine how much gold is in the coin in question, you test the gold coin in front of you. Testing a different, silver coin, tells you nothing about the coin in question. To find out about it, you test it." There are genetic tests deemed valid that can now be done on one cell of a less than one-hundred cells embryo. The tests are valid because the individual is already alive and testable even at embryo age.

[Mr. Silverback]

Done. Happt trails and God Bless.

[plusone]

Interesting idea. Can you expand on the 24 week theory?

[Mr. Silverback]

Oops. Make that "Happy trails."

[plusone]

I agree with the last two paragraphs of your response. I don't approve of using aborted tissue for stem cell research. The rest of your reply seems to suggest that conception is your starting point for life. For you, life and personhood coincide. That's fine, I don't argue your right to hold this view, and it may be correct. I believe that our soul is bestowed later, at 12 weeks. I didn't elaborate yesterday since it was late and I was tired. TTOQ, as you have pointed out, is an old belief system. On a different thread, it was pointed out to me that this is extra-Biblical, not a part of the Bible, but instead a separate ancient notion. It is an attempt to explain why the baby begins to kick. The science explanation is that the fetus becomes animate at the point where the nervous/muscluar system developes sufficiently to start sending and receiving signals. The muscles begin to twitch as the nerves begin to fire. The religious explanation is that the baby becomes 'alive' at this point, seperate from its mother since it has received its own soul. But both explanations focus on the same fact, the animation of the fetus. If the notion of TTOQ is correct, then abortions before this point would not strictly be murder, since the fetus has no seperate soul yet and is still developing tissue. If the scientific reason is the proper explanation for why the baby begins to move at this time, then abortion after this point might register as pain to the fetus, since the nervous system is now working and can receive these signals. So abortion past this point would be torture. It is possible, of course that both science and religion have focussed at this point simply because they are both right. The nerves function because of the reception of a soul. This also helps to explain away the trouble with miscarriages. Since most happen before the 12th week, these fetuses have not yet aquired a soul, so there is no 'God murder'. They are just tissue at this point. What other purpose would there be for God to start these souls at conception, only to let them die a few weeks later? What is the point of that?