Posted on 12/06/2006 10:56:00 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Heard of it. Never read it.
*waits patiently for his instructor to e-mail him his grade*
When I brought up that I could only remember back to when I was 5, I was just showing that there must have been some point, post-delivery, before which people can remember their lives. I'm sure it varies from person to person, and that would be part of the impossibility of having a universal definition of personhood occuring in those early years.
I'd like to hear more of the 'potential' argument. An acorn or fetus may be biologically mapped to become a tree or person, but that is due to a natural biological cycle of reproduction. I have the 'potential' to become a millionaire, does that mean you treat me as if I already was a millionaire?
I happen to believe in an individual human spirit. I cannot prove the moment when that spirit is present with the indiviudal soul. That leads me to search for supporting evidence of when the soul is present and thus assume the parallel presence of the spirit at the same time, to be safe.
I can make a very good case for the soul being present at the zygote age. You may draw conclusions from that ... I do not accept the 'potential' when there is already an organism present at zygote age. Potential is what sperm and ova are.
Pick up a real acorn and carefully open the meat of it. At the dividing line of the two halves you will find a small oak tree already in evidence. The same can be done with any peanut in the shell. An acorn has within it a real already visible oak tree. People come up with lots of foolish stuff when trying to dismiss truth in order to support what they want to be true but is not true. I would refer you to the specious term 'pre-embryo' This falsehood has sucked in no less than Orin Hatch.
You may have read the term 'fertilized egg' when referencing a petri dish embryonic aged human. Fact is, when fertilization occurs there is no loger an ova or egg, there is a distinct new organism, even though the zygote and morula ages are spent inside the zona pellucida of the original ovum. Even in this age spent inside the original cell membrane of the ovum, the new individual life is differentiating cells to allow for implantation and formation of the first organ for survival of the living organism. The problem with most falsehoods perpetrated to support killing embryos for their body part, they try to alter the truth to fit their desired paradigm, and that can be deadly.
The first application of embryonic stem cells used to treat a Parkinson's patient killed the patient because the stem cells harvested contained cells to produce the body for life in the air world AND cells for the placental encapsultation. The embryo had already differentiated cells yet those pushing a falsehood claim embryos are undifferentiated cell masses from which stem cells must be harvested for treatments and research.
In short, use a simple test to measure a notion regarding the earliest ages in human life: is the object of the discussion an organism or merely portions of a future organism; is there an actual organism present? If the object is a human organism, he or she (and the sex can be determined at earliest age) is a human being at earliest age in a lifetime already begun. Growth and metabolism evidence life and that is active manifestation of the soul of life, so assume the spirit is there also, unless proven later to be inaccurate. [That is your cue to try and raise the winning argument. To which I will reply, 'would you shoot into a box where at least one child was playing, even if two children may be in the box?]
"That is your cue to try and raise the winning argument." SHOULD READ Twinning, not winning. Tired, 61 year-old fingers ...
ping
I agree with much of what you wrote, and you argue your points persuasively. Don’t worry yourself that I’m not being fully convinced, I’m one of those people who think abortion is an indeterminate issue that can’t be neatly and quickly rationalized by either side.
We agree that the embryo is a living organism of the human species from the moment of conception. You brought up an interesting point about our ‘lifetime’ beginning at conception. We might, in the future, then add 9 months to our ages!
I believe there exists a spiritual soul and a human spirit. The ‘human spirit’ I would call ‘personhood’ – the thing that makes us different than animals. The moment when each of these begins is very unclear and open to speculation, and I think this is what nearly every abortion discussion boils down to.
It seems to me (what presumption!) that God is interested in personhood, not just static life. Personhood is when one would have a chance to make moral or immoral decisions and face ethical dilemmas. Your ‘soul’, I believe, is grown by your conscience, which doesn’t appear until ‘personhood’. Before that, if it exists, it is neutral and untouched. Then the question becomes, is its essence defined by its function or does the soul go through a life cycle – being conceived, birthing, growing, then dying? In short, I don’t think God is interested in the science, I think he’s interested in whether or not our soul has had a chance to begin a relationship with Him.
I’ve not heard the ‘twinning argument’, perhaps you can explain it and your reply to it.
Everyone, I finally got a conclusive grade from my instructor.
A!
Add in that I got all A's on my semester report card, and you've got one happy freshman. :D
Merry Christmas to all, and a Happy New Year!
Pinging all the others!
I got an A!
A more specific detailing will come following my meeting with the instructor after New Year's Eve.
I rejoice with you over a just grade for a well researched and competently articulated essay. Merry Christmas Ultra Sonic!!!!!
Our daughter ran into the same thing. She preached to the teacher in her papers all year...fearing that he would give her horrible grades, yet convicted that what she was writing was what needed to be said. She got straight "A's" and was really surprised as she figured it being a state school and that the prof was very liberal. Her last essay was on abortion and for the prof's final comments he said, "Great writing, and by the way...you've been preaching to the choir all year!"
The Democratic leadership considers 90% of America to be too stupid to make their own decisions. The unborn are a cut below the 90%.
Congratulations, Ultra Sonic Scholar!
What you really have to ask yourself, is what kind of "person" would risk killing a living soul that the Lord knows?
The next question should be, how do you justify saving the ones (souls) you would save to those who don't believe in the Creator or souls, but who make up a large proportion of the voters and legislators?
It's surprisingly simple: You challenge the inconsistency of living as though the Christian worldview were true by employing transcendent axioms such as the laws of logic, numbers, theories, and belief that the physical world is in fact real. You demand that they justify these presuppositions (based on constants) given their dogma that all truth is relative. In short, you chop down their system of thought using its own internal contradictions.
Great work, and thanks for the feedback! Your work can now be used as an example of the possible for other students who find themselves in a quandary regarding their assignments.
This is hardly going to be a "scientific" answer, but your paper is excellent! I know you couldn't write this, but the long and short of it is that common sense makes the case! Nevertheless, you did some great work! Keep it up!
Nancee
AMEN!!
The more I read this, the better I think the paper is! Hats off to you, "Ultra Sonic 007"!!!
:-)
I was a public speaker on life-and-death issue for years, and became well-acquainted with the volley of points and counter-points. This experience has helped me in various fast-and-FReepin debates here at Free Republic, and perhaps some of what I wrote would be interesting to you: I think it would. Here's my best (recent) analysis on legal and moral personhood:
IVF, cloning, and artificial reproduction technologies' impact on human dignity
Libertarian argument for dependent child's right to support from parent
Is an unwanted embryo a trespasser on your property?
Are embryos just "developing" but not yet human?
Is an early embryo like a person wth a flat EEG?
How do you determine the worth or value of a living being?
I am happy to recommend the sharp writing and relentless logic of Libertarians for Life.
Best wishes to you, defender of truth and life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.