When Is Human Life A Human Being?

http://www.freebritannia.co.uk ^ | 6/16/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[exmarine]

We can't escape having personal opinions, some less contradictory than others. I include us all in that category.

Some opinions reflect absolute reality, some don't. Their's don't and neither do yours. Right and wrong extend beyond the person. God is my source for moral absolutes - what's yours? The Supreme Court?

I don't think they "like killing unborn babies", but I haven't read each post.

Then why do they spend hours and hours defending the practice? They have corrupt hearts and minds. If morals are relative to each person, that is what you end up with - mere personal preference or taste. No way around it. If God is not the source of morals, then all is just an impersonal machine. Cruelty and non-cruelty become equal, and it would then be as Marquis de Sade declared: "What is, is right."

Assuming a God that has absolute right and wrong. Of course a God might have moral relativism itself. I remain agnostic about God and its nature.

The God of the bible is the source of absolute right and wrong (moral absolutes are not made up on a whim, they flow directly from His Holy Character, they reflect His goodness and purity). Try reading the 10 commandments - the embodiment of moral absolutes. Murder is ALWAYS wrong. God is eternal and transcendant, and so is His character and moral fingerprints. Moral Laws are eternal because God is eternal; morals laws do not change because God doesn't change. You only have two logical choices - morals are either from God (absolute) or from man (relative to man's preferences) - that exhausts the choices. The I know you don't want to try to defend moral relativism - it's logically and practically indefensible.

[exmarine]

I think morality has more to it than religion or science or personal taste.

What is the source of right and wrong? You have two choices - man or God. Take your pick.

[MHGinTN]

A moral relativist will argue even with the assertion that morals derive from either man or God. It's what allows their mind to squirm out from responsibility, don'tcha know!

[exmarine]

A moral relativist will argue even with the assertion that morals derive from either man or God. It's what allows their mind to squirm out from responsibility, don'tcha know!

Then that relatist would need to name an alternate source! There aren't any! If he can't name a third possible source, then he can't say one exists!

Yes, but if morals are relative and truth is relative, then everything is personal preference, so what is the point of arguing? You see, the very act of arguing is a tacit admission that there is some moral OBJECTIVE truth to be ascertained. So, in arguing the relativist is admitting that there is moral truth! Furthermore, no one can live like a relativist - it's impossible because we are moral creatures with a sense of right and wrong. If there is no right and wrong, then the relativist contradicts himself everytime he uses the words "right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "should", "praise", "blame". If relativism is true, if morals are personal preferences only, then he cannot complain if I kick him in the knee and steal his stereo without contradicting his ethic(because if I believe I am right in doing so then I am right!). If relativism is true, then all things become persmissible, and there can be no moral difference between torturing a baby and feeding the poor. We all know that just doesn't wash - it militates against all human historical experience and inclination and intuition. It's anti-intuitive. Cruelty and non-cruelty are not equal! Ethics is my speciality - I have dismantled many a relativist who tried to argue for his position.

[exmarine]

By the way, I read your profile. I admire your dedication and compassion in speaking out for the innocent. Prov. 6 tells us that "God hates the shedding of innocent blood." Keep up the good work.

[exmarine]

We can't escape having personal opinions, some less contradictory than others. I include us all in that category.

Yes, Hitler and Stalin had their opinions, didn't they? Al Qaeda has their opinion too. If relativism is true, then none of these people can be wrong and evil cannot possibly exist. Do you really want to go there?

[hocndoc]

You ignore the fact that I said that I don't and will not advocate for law based on my religious beliefs.

I will vote, lobby and advocate for laws that protect the inalientable rights to life and liberty for all humans, regardless of physical attributes, intelligence or interest in canibalizing other humans - except in the case of those who act on their self-interest to harm or end another human life.

[XBob]

802 - "What is the source of right and wrong? You have two choices - man or God. Take your pick."

BS - according to you - you keep denying me a choice, except your beliefs, not mine.

So you assume there is a god, and in addition, a god who exists as you percieve him.

According to you, through hundreds of posts here, I have no choice, except what you believe.

And at this point, I believe that god was created by man, out of a need for a father, and a need for an explanation for things that at this point we have no explaination for.

Go back a few hundred years, and your ancestors believed that diseases were caused by god, not by microscopic organisms. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. It makes it true that you believe it though.

[XBob]

91 - "when an alive organism is located at one moment in time is the exact same state for every alive organism, namely, its next temporal moment is always and only potential. But it is the same organism from moment to moment once conceived."

So, the sperm is alive and part of the male until it is killed by the female or the egg?

It seems to me that the 'organism' did not 'begin' at 'conception' but before conception, and the next temporal moment, (after ejaculation) it merely moves location. It sure seems to be alive, swimming frantically to find and get into that egg, seeking its own death?

You never seem to want to address the 'aliveness' before 'conception'. Is or is not the sperm 'alive'?

And if it isn't alive, then what about the belief of all the people posting on this thread who believe that life is 'eternal'?

[XBob]

98 - "the conceptus is totipotent in the 'potential' temporal flow (all the cells , tissues, and organs of a later age along its continuum of life may come from it in the fullness of time),"

Wow, it just hit me, why youall are against cloning. Each normal human cell (excluding the gametes) has all the potential for 'life', when supported in the proper circumstances.

So cloning an adult from a single cell would obliterate your argument. We (humans) have already cloned single individual cells, and turned them into zygotes, who replicate and reproduce.

Why are they not endowed with a human soul? If they do have a soul, then do they have the same soul as their 'parent'? Or do they have a new soul when the replicate themselves?

Actually, I guess, I am more 'godly' than you, in that I belive that life is basically 'eternal', at least from the beginning of life (when ever that was, billions of years ago), and has never been terminated or destroyed, just a small portion transferred into a different location and circumstance.

[XBob]

99 - "I would also note for you, Bob, that the neonate baby is the SAME individual that was the zygote back along its lifetime continuum."

I would note that half of the neonate baby is the same as the individual which was the same individual as each of it's parents.

[exmarine]

According to you, through hundreds of posts here, I have no choice, except what you believe.

Name another possible source for morals other than God or man. You can't do it - there are no other possibilities. ET perhaps? So, by logic, you are confined to one or the other. Which is it?

[exmarine]

Go back a few hundred years, and your ancestors believed that diseases were caused by god, not by microscopic organisms. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. It makes it true that you believe it though.

This statement is laughable. The so-called "scientists" of 500 years ago were the ignorant ones! They used to "bleed" people as a medical treatment for disease, and they believed in "phlogiston," and an earth-centered universe. It was Christians/theists who made the biggest scientific breakthroughs in history - Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Pasteur. Furthermore, the ancient jews had built-in protections against germs. How did they know? Read the bible - God told Moses that the hebrews were not to drink blood or touch a dead animal - why do you suppose that was? How did Moses know that blood and dead animals carry bacteria and disease? The jews also had hygienic practices. During the Black Death of the 1300s, Jews were relatively unschathed by the plague - why? Because they were clean so the disease-carrying rats didn't hang out in their neighborhood as they did others. As a result, many blamed the jews for plague. Who was more ignorant? Care to do some study and rethink before making any more "ignorant" statements?

[XBob]

812 - "Name another possible source for morals other than God or man. You can't do it - there are no other possibilities. ET perhaps? So, by logic, you are confined to one or the other. Which is it?"

Which god? jehova, jesus, allah, buddha, one of the hundreds of hindu gods, the roman gods, the greek gods, the egyptian gods? and there are a lot more gods man envisioned over the years. which one?

[XBob]

813 - "This statement is laughable. The so-called "scientists" of 500 years ago were the ignorant ones! "

Interesting, and quite true. So 500 years ago, people were much more ignorant than they are today. And today, we are arguing about the existence of god/gods 'discovered'/'invented' 1500 years ago and 2000 years ago?

That is sort of like the 'greenies' argument - we need to ban SUV's because it's warmer now than any time in last 500 years. (Which leads to the logical assumption there were more SUV's 500 years ago)

[exmarine]

Which god? jehova, jesus, allah, buddha, one of the hundreds of hindu gods, the roman gods, the greek gods, the egyptian gods? and there are a lot more gods man envisioned over the years. which one?

So you admit that morals come from God? You know if you say man, you don't have a leg to stand on, don't you? As I mentioned befoer, the Law of Contradiction does not allow that all of these gods exist. Logic does not allow it. All cannot be real. So which one do you pick? The one that best reflects human reality, human experience, and historical evidence, of course. When one speaks of evidence, Christianity is the ONLY God with any real evidence. Apparently, you have never examined any of these things. Are you a truth seeker or not?

[palmer]

I respect your religion, but I disagree with your source of morality. Fundamentally, morals come from the human capacity to empathize with other humans, and to some extent animals. Normal humans do not like or want to see other humans suffer, and so are pro-life. Few people are truly evil, but many refuse to see the humanity in unborn children either through ignorance or denial.

[XBob]

816 - "So you admit that morals come from God? "

Not at all. I just wanted to point out that a lot of people through the years have believed a lot of things about the 'unknown'.

and you say - "All cannot be real. So which one do you pick?"

Actually, the words of your god condemn my 2 wives and myself to hell for not believing in christ (1st - buddhist, 2nd - hindu, and me agnostic). And the religion I was raised with (baptist) condemned my mother to hell for getting a divorce and more particularly for marrying a catholic.

And since I read Dante's Inferno (at about age 15) and understood the terrible punnishments of hell, I thought I would explore the various religions, because I didn't like the idea of my mother being tortured so badly, and especially for all eternity.

If I were to adopt a religion, I probably become a Budhist or a Taoist. I get tired of getting lectured by christians how the whole world is born sinners. I prefer to think we are born innocents. Actually, I prefer to feel that we are 'born', period, and not 'created' in an instant at conception.

As I have lived extensively overseas, and associated with and been friends with many many non-christians, of various religions, I am more familiar than most with other religions/gods. Personally, I have found that there are more 'moral' buddhists, percentagewise, than 'moral' christians.

[XBob]

So now we know - the penalty for allowing a person to die, stuck in a windshield, is 50 years, with no parole for at least 25 years.

So, by your views, the punnishment for using a contraceptive which prevents implantation (even if in only a small number of cases) should be 50 years.

The penalty for performing an abortion should be 50 years.

The penalty for having an abortion performed should be 50 years.

And the doctors and lab technicians and potential mothers, engaged in fertility treatments, which destroy any 'extra' embryo's, should certainly be 50 years, and that should certainly be for each fertilized egg.

And if a woman takes fertility drugs and gets 9 fertile embryos implanted, she should be forced to carry all of them to term, or be punished - by say 50 years, for the first one and should we give her a break, for mass murder?

And no intervention should be allowed to save the mother's life, in a troubled pregnancy, as the fertilized egg is of the same value as the mother. And nature should be allowed to take it's natural course.

And abortions in case of rape should be strictly outlawed.

Perhaps the penalty for failing to check your menses for a living fertilized egg should be reduced (as you were too lazy to check), to what do you think, 25 years? But the 'persson' you flushed is just as dead, and you knowingly flushed, without checking. So, how about 40 years in jail, with no parole until at least 20 years?

What do youall think - of where your arguments lead?

[palmer]

Remember Luke SkyFreeper's thread a week or two ago? He maintained that if we focus on punishment in these marginal cases like the ones you mention, we will lose public sympathy for the pro-life altogether. I agree with that but don't think it's an adequate reason to deny protection. I have a different reason which the others on this thread don't like because it does not involve science or articles of faith

My reasoning is very simply based on emotion. A normal human being upon hitting someone like that woman did would recognize that was a human they hit, and that human was in pain. That emotion of empathy is not precise or foolproof as we saw in the recent case. We need to cultivate that emotion in ourselves and others. One way to encourage it is to punish people who lack it.

There can be no such recognition in the case of a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg has no recognizable human features even under a microscope, has no neurons and feels no pain. When it dies it does not suffer.

I do not deny the power of faith-based morality, and the fact that faith-based morality underlies our legal framework. Perhaps like chickens and eggs, there's no way to determine which came first, but morality based on empathy is undeniable and powerful.