All abortion ends a human life...

4,663 Views | 76 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by General Jack D. Ripper
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is the claim that "all abortion ends a human life" uncontentious? Shouldn't it be uncontentious?

Surely the fetus is a life, correct? Nobody claims that it's an inanimate object, right? Maybe it's just at the level of plant life, but it's life, right?

And it's certainly not a walrus or a kitten. What could it be but a human life?

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

Is the claim that "all abortion ends a human life" uncontentious? Shouldn't it be uncontentious?

Surely the fetus is a life, correct? Nobody claims that it's an inanimate object, right? Maybe it's just at the level of plant life, but it's life, right?

And it's certainly not a walrus or a kitten. What could it be but a human life?


An inconvenience for many.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is why many pro-choice advocates have started shifting to: it may be a human, but as it lacks sentience, it's not a person.

You will still have those that say it's a life but not a viable life. This argument is losing ground as well because it's perfectly viable inside of the mother until the point that you kill it.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Abortion is the only medical procedure that ends a human life. And the doctor gets paid for it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
....and it is celebrated in our culture
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The embryo has is own unique, human, DNA. Just like all human life at any stage, whether it's 8 days in the womb or 80 years out of the womb, if you take away what he/she needs to live or harm it, death is a consequence.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!




One point and one warning:

The idea that a large percentage of embryos don't implant comes from studies on women seeking fertility treatment. These are not studies done on average females. Most of the their numbers are derived from the number of embryos that don't take in the IVF process. That data can't be extrapolated to the average female either. Even attempting to study the success rate of embryos in healthy women would be near impossible because there is no way to know if fertilization occurred without intensive observation that most healthy females aren't signing up for.

Second, I appreciate that you see 8 weeks as a reasonably safe cut off, but I will always warn against suggesting any living human is not a person. We've seen how that goes in society. I like your caution at 8 weeks and would suggest extending the caution to the entirety of that human life's existence.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.

In Catholic parlance, we are a body/soul composite. It is what we are. It's fundamental to our existence. This is in contrast to the beasts and angels.

Side note: much of the argumentation on this topic doesn't focus on what is, but rather contingencies along side of what is. What is it? A distinct human organism. How said organism came to exist is irrelevant despite people trying to make it so (I'm looking at you, exceptions and viability proponents).
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.


Agree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Pro Sandy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!


I feel the mindset of "I don't know if it is a human or not," should lead to an absolute ban on abortion. I don't understand you can be OK with just hoping you aren't either murdering someone or supporting the murder of someone.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pro Sandy said:

fat girlfriend said:

I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!


I feel the mindset of "I don't know if it is a human or not," should lead to an absolute ban on abortion. I don't understand you can be OK with just hoping you aren't either murdering someone or supporting the murder of someone.


Agree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

Is the claim that "all abortion ends a human life" uncontentious? Shouldn't it be uncontentious?

Surely the fetus is a life, correct? Nobody claims that it's an inanimate object, right? Maybe it's just at the level of plant life, but it's life, right?

And it's certainly not a walrus or a kitten. What could it be but a human life?
Everyone admits it's a human life. The question is bodily autonomy. Which is worse: killing a human life in the womb of the mother? Or preventing a woman from expelling that human from her own body? Pro-life would say the former, pro-choice would say that latter.

btw...I'm glad to see A threads back on the G&A board. Threads on how great the Eastern Orthodox church is and how evil Calvinism & eternal punishment are were really boring up the place.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)

No, sorry. Our life is hidden in Christ, but that does NOT entail a dualism. That is a later gloss - medieval western - and is foreign to the eastern tradition. It is not essential to Christianity and indeed I believe it is simply wrong.

This is precisely why the bodily resurrection is necessary. Without it you are not you. *You* qua you cannot exist without your body. So, yes, your body is essential to your identity.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So here is my objective analysis on this subject.

Reality 1: We cannot prove scientifically in the existence of a soul. There are many people that do not believe in the existence of a soul. Therefore, any argument around abortion that discusses a soul is religious argument, not a moral one.

Reality 2: A person is more valued than a non-person life. You don't get charged for murder for shooting a dog. It's not OK to eat a dead human being. For this discussion, we will define a Person as a being that is able to have rational thought, and is self-aware. A Person has more value than a living being that does not.

Reality 3: An embryo does not have self-awareness or rational thought.

Reality 4: For this analysis, we will use Unborn to collectively refer to embryo / fetus. Every Unborn, if it is genetically sound and implanted in a healthy mother, has the capability to develop into a Person. Tragically, not every Unborn does, but the capacity is there. Because of this an Unborn is different than every other non-Person living thing. There are no other living things on this earth that have the capacity to become a Person other than an Unborn. Miscarriages can be exceptionally tragic. They can cause great distress to the mother and other family on the loss of the Person that was expected.

Reality 5: We do not know when rational thought begins. It very likely begins prior to birth, but it is difficult to measure. One interesting note here is that Navajo have a celebration of the baby's first laugh as proof that the baby is capable of rational thought, and when the baby really achieves Personhood.

Reality 6: In states where abortion is legal,, the mother has the right to determine Personhood of the Unborn. A woman could be walking across the street to get a legal abortion when she is hit by a drunk driver that ends the pregnancy, and the driver can be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Reality 7: Reasonable people can disagree about the Personhood of the Unborn. It is difficult for most religious people to make an argument about early Personhood without talking about the soul, which some people do not believe in. It is insensitive and intolerant for non-religious people to dismiss people's beliefs about the soul of an Unborn. People that come from two different places of underlying assumptions can reasonably achieve two different conclusions without being intellectually dishonest. There is, in fact, a gray area here if we are accepting of a broad collection world-views.

The real question: The difficulty here is that the state should be protecting Persons from harm, even from the Person's mother. From a legal perspective how do we handle this? Where do we draw the line for legal Personhood that needs protection from the state, and why? Conception is a rationally logical choice, since all Unborn could eventually become Persons. So is heartbeat. So is viability. So is birth. Honestly, if you can step back from your Western heritage, so is first laugh. For anyone to call a religious person ignorant for their belief that abortion is murder is intolerant. For a religious person to call anyone ignorant for their belief that abortion is not murder is alsointolerant.

Issue 1: There is grey area here when it comes to a woman's right to her own body and the Personhood of the Unborn. Unborn are special in that they are parasitic to the Mother until birth. There is no bond like the Unborn with its Mother. The state taking a position to protect a Person from its mother is a huge imposition on the Mother. When the state determines that an Unborn is a Person and takes a position to protect the Unborn, the state makes an imposition on a woman's body. What a mess!

Issue 2: Allowing the state to protect Unborn as a Person gives the state power to regulate the body of the mother. This is a scary and sobering thought. Many will argue that it is the right thing to do given the situation, but it is reality.

My position is one that is sure to piss off almost everyone. I am a religious Person, and believe in the soul, and in scripture that tells me that God forms the body of the Unborn in the womb, therefore, I believe that Personhood begins at conception. However, I don't want the state to have the power to regulate a woman's body. I just don't trust them with this power. Once, when this country had stronger Christian convictions, I was more comfortable with that. I am not now. I think that the state, at the federal level, has no place telling a woman what to do with her body. However, I do trust my local government a lot more than I trust the federal government. I think that if you live in a community of people that all believe in the soul, that they are to be trusted more than an unfamiliar federal government.

Therefore, I think that if a woman wants to get an abortion, she should have that legal right if the majority of the people in the place where she lives think that she should. I'm not even sure that this is a good thing to decide at the state level, but maybe the county level. But, in my mind, every abortion is still killing a baby Person. It's as tragic as any other miscarriage in my eyes, and nothing will ever change that in my mind. But I don't see the mother as a murderer, just lost. How can I call her a murderer when she has no respect for the soul?

I will continue to vote pro-life, and support pro-life causes, especially at the local level. But I think that people that conclude that this is the only way to view the world are myopic. Why should my beliefs about Personhood affect the relationship between the state, the Unborn, and mother in San Fran? People in San Fran are crazy, and do not share my values or culture. I'm not willing to go to war with China to end abortion there! Why is San Fran any more important to me than China on this subject?

I think the current situation is about right, although, I would make abortion a county by county issue. The less we, as a country, try to impose our local belief systems on the nation as a whole, the less success we are going to have as a country.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is well thought out and I wish I had time to give it a more robust answer. Unfortunately I'll have to resort to the age old: this was the same argument used for chattel slavery. Some people saw blacks as equally persons. Some saw them as lesser humans. Some saw them as barely human. Depending on where you fell on that spectrum, it was much less or more likely that you would support slavery. So we fell back on local rights to solve the issue until it all blew up in our faces.

I agree that local control is better. I wish we did a whole lot more of that. But when we're talking about a fundamental right that either is or isn't being given to a person, defining what personhood means is monumental. We can't kick that can down the road and we can't let local governments decide if they are people or not.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

This is well thought out and I wish I had time to give it a more robust answer. Unfortunately I'll have to resort to the age old: this was the same argument used for chattel slavery. Some people saw blacks as equally persons. Some saw them as lesser humans. Some saw them as barely human. Depending on where you fell on that spectrum, it was much less or more likely that you would support slavery. So we fell back on local rights to solve the issue until it all blew up in our faces.

I agree that local control is better. I wish we did a whole lot more of that. But when we're talking about a fundamental right that either is or isn't being given to a person, defining what personhood means is monumental. We can't kick that can down the road and we can't let local governments decide if they are people or not.
This is a pretty good response. But, I will distinguish the argument.

I would say, the argument that blacks are less than human is pretty intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. It is a fact that an embryo does not have rational thought. It would take some real pretzel turning to say the same thing about a black man.

What would be the argument that a black human being is not a Person? Jesus was likely closer to black than white.

Some arguments are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. The pro-abortion stance is, in my opinion, at least not intellectually dishonest. The morally bankrupt part is kind of an opinion.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Is the claim that "all abortion ends a human life" uncontentious? Shouldn't it be uncontentious?

Surely the fetus is a life, correct? Nobody claims that it's an inanimate object, right? Maybe it's just at the level of plant life, but it's life, right?

And it's certainly not a walrus or a kitten. What could it be but a human life?
Everyone admits it's a human life. The question is bodily autonomy. Which is worse: killing a human life in the womb of the mother? Or preventing a woman from expelling that human from her own body? Pro-life would say the former, pro-choice would say that latter.

btw...I'm glad to see A threads back on the G&A board. Threads on how great the Eastern Orthodox church is and how evil Calvinism & eternal punishment are were really boring up the place.


Well, one passed over in the double predestination theology is off worse than the aborted baby. And makes God worse than the abortionist who can not pass over anyone to eternal torment.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My understanding of their argument was that they based their opinion on observation. When they leave their societies and encounter the tribes of Africa, they obviously notice a significant difference. They were seen as less intelligent and really just "less than" overall in the opinion of the white people dealing with them. Therefore, they were seen as less human or even sub-human. This wasn't the majority view, but there was enough of a difference that those who wanted to keep black people subservient were able to argue for it.

We still see this with modern day racists, but now they use science/pseudo-science. They will use the fact that minorities have lower IQs, poorer societal outcomes, etc. to show white superiority, but as a society at large, we reject this. We it's easy to reject now that we live freely amongst each other and can experience life with people of different races.

Thats how I feel about abortion. The embryo has all the DNA it will ever need to be the exact person they were meant to be. They just need to be allowed to enter into society. We can try to science/pseudo-science them into non-personhood via things like sentience, but DNA is a brute fact, and therefore, much safer to use. There is no doubt a unique set of human DNA, having all the qualities of life, is intentionally being terminated. That is crystal clear. Any personing or de-personing is a subjective exercise.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord. And that he awaits the resurrection.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.
Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.
Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.


Agree. What about when bombs completely obliterates someone? Or in airplane crashes?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.
Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.
Do you believe in the resurrection?
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pro Sandy said:

fat girlfriend said:

I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!


I feel the mindset of "I don't know if it is a human or not," should lead to an absolute ban on abortion. I don't understand you can be OK with just hoping you aren't either murdering someone or supporting the murder of someone.
It's not about being okay with it. It's about recognizing the incredible cost of acting as though i have knowledge, when I don't. Suppose we decide to "err on the side of caution, recognizing the 1 week old embryo as a person." Well, sorry 13 year old rape victim. The enormous cost to you is ignored just on the possibility of harming the one week old embyro person.
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.
Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.
Do you believe in the resurrection?
Yes, though perhaps not as you mean it. I don't believe the literal atoms of the disintegrated earthly bodies of nuclear blast victim Christians will be reconstituted. Maybe so, but I doubt it.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!


BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

My understanding of their argument was that they based their opinion on observation. When they leave their societies and encounter the tribes of Africa, they obviously notice a significant difference. They were seen as less intelligent and really just "less than" overall in the opinion of the white people dealing with them. Therefore, they were seen as less human or even sub-human. This wasn't the majority view, but there was enough of a difference that those who wanted to keep black people subservient were able to argue for it.

We still see this with modern day racists, but now they use science/pseudo-science. They will use the fact that minorities have lower IQs, poorer societal outcomes, etc. to show white superiority, but as a society at large, we reject this. We it's easy to reject now that we live freely amongst each other and can experience life with people of different races.
Thanks for this response. My comments below. Note that I mostly play Devil's Advocate here, but just giving the opposing view.

I note that arguments that white people are a superior race and should rule are different than arguments that blacks are not human. I obviously disagree with both. I also agree with you that racism is mostly a product of ignorance, and that familiarity with other cultures tends to generate acceptance.

Quote:

Thats how I feel about abortion. The embryo has all the DNA it will ever need to be the exact person they were meant to be. They just need to be allowed to enter into society. We can try to science/pseudo-science them into non-personhood via things like sentience, but DNA is a brute fact, and therefore, much safer to use. There is no doubt a unique set of human DNA, having all the qualities of life, is intentionally being terminated. That is crystal clear. Any personing or de-personing is a subjective exercise.
Great response.

I think zero people will argue that an embryo will one day be a Person. That is why an argument that Personhood begins at conception is intellectually honest, even if you exclude the religious aspect. That's why I like Bill Burr's bit on abortion. It's actually along those lines, and made me really think about this subject.


The religious aspect just adds more weight. I will extend this to say that, at one time, the Catholic church used to say that masturbation was a sin, because it held half a human life. It was wasting the DNA of half a human life. So it was half as bad as abortion, which is a mortal sin. Do you agree with the catholic view of outlawing contraceptives? It's the same line of reasoning. Using a condom destroys the opportunity to create a human life. Why should the line of Personhood be drawn at conception and not at coitus?

But, the question at issue is not really, is the Unborn philosophically a Person. The question is, does it deserve to be protected as a Person by the state, and so much so, that it justifies an imposition by the state into the human body of the mother? That is a stickier wicket. In order to pass that test, you kind of have to agree as a society where Personhood starts. I think that there are legitimate intellectual arguments that Personhood starts later. I'm not OK with forcing my opinion on the matter into the relationship between the state and the body of some woman that lives in San Francisco.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

fat girlfriend said:

Zobel said:

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.
Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)
The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.
If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.
Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.
So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.
I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.
Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.
Do you believe in the resurrection?
Yes, though perhaps not as you mean it. I don't believe the literal atoms of the disintegrated earthly bodies of nuclear blast victim Christians will be reconstituted. Maybe so, but I doubt it.
Well now you're talking about what makes our body our body. Regardless, is God capable of raising you from the dead even if you were disintegrated?
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

This is why many pro-choice advocates have started shifting to: it may be a human, but as it lacks sentience, it's not a person.

You will still have those that say it's a life but not a viable life. This argument is losing ground as well because it's perfectly viable inside of the mother until the point that you kill it.


Define sentience
How would one prove "sentience"
Where is "personhood" defined as needing "sentience" to qualify as a person?

All to say that there are a great many gray areas in this stance. It is my opinion that we need a much less subjective "line" when talking about which human lives are worthy of protection.

When you start differentiating between "human" and "person" you open the door for some very bad unintended consequences
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.