How do abortion supporters reconcile their support for abortion . .

[vern_humphrey]

Given your three criteria, how is the cancer argument flawed?

Is the communicable cancer living? Check!
Does the communicable cancer have human DNA? Check!
Does the communicable cancer have human DNA different from its host? Check!
The communicable cancer must therefore be a human being, ACCORDING TO YOUR THREE CRITERIA!!
​

You’ll try anything, won’t you?

The Cancer does not meet my criteria because it does not have its own DNA – it has a slightly modified version of the original cancer patient’s DNA.​

 

[hasikelee]

Originally Posted by Deo Volente forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Mapleoak, the children in the box story is so flawed as to be virtually meaningless in an abortion discussion. It is, in fact, reasonable to assume that a cardboard box in a dump of all places will be vacant of children. The likelihood of children habitually inhabiting cardboard boxes in city dumps is, I imagine, so small as to make it reasonable to assume that no children are present.
In rural and semi-rural areas, children frequently play in dumps – my mother used to take me and my brother and our wagons to a dump in Lake Charles, LA, where we would gather off-cuts and discarded boards, sticks, and so on and bring them home in the wagon. She used them to build a fire under the was boiler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deo Volente forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Furthermore, the need to shoot cardboard boxes in a city dump is, I would imagine, such a rare compulsion, that should one have such a need, one could safely assume that one could do so with relative impunity.

Dumps, landfills and so on are commonly used as shooting ranges in rural and semi-rural areas.

I agree with vern. We had an incident in the city where teens were “attacking” large appliances with cars and atvs. A little odd, but not really an issue as the items were part of a special collection of large waste items and wortheless. Nevertheless, the teens demolished a fridge and afterwards found out two little kids were playing under it. (The city removes the doors, so it was like a little playhouse.) This wasn’t even a rural area. Kids like imagination-rich places.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You’ll try anything, won’t you?

Not anything. Almost anything, maybe.

The Cancer does not meet my criteria because it does not have its own DNA – it has a slightly modified version of the original cancer patient’s DNA.

But your argument as stated only requires the DNA to be human and unique relative to the host. The communicable cancer is certainly that!

Re: the city-dump shooting range, chalk my incomprehension up to being a city boy. The only times I’ve fired a gun were at shooting ranges in Southern California and while hunting in Arizona and Missouri. When I think of city dumps, living as I do now in New York, I don’t think of kid-friendly playgrounds, though I can certainly see the appeal to a child.

That having been said, I still think the story is about exercising general caution (particularly given the context that’s been given), and not specifically about abortion. It has as much to do with abortion as it does with exercising caution when opening doors quickly in heavily trafficked areas. In fact, it has more to do with opening doors quickly in heavily trafficked areas than abortion. So… I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[mapleoak]

Grace & Peace!

Not anything. Almost anything, maybe.

But your argument as stated only requires the DNA to be human and unique relative to the host. The communicable cancer is certainly that!

Re: the city-dump shooting range, chalk my incomprehension up to being a city boy. The only times I’ve fired a gun were at shooting ranges in Southern California and while hunting in Arizona and Missouri. When I think of city dumps, living as I do now in New York, I don’t think of kid-friendly playgrounds, though I can certainly see the appeal to a child.

That having been said, I still think the story is about exercising general caution (particularly given the context that’s been given), and not specifically about abortion. It has as much to do with abortion as it does with exercising caution when opening doors quickly in heavily trafficked areas. In fact, it has more to do with opening doors quickly in heavily trafficked areas than abortion. So… I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Okay, now who is it that is arguing just for the sake of arguing?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Okay, now who is it that is arguing just for the sake of arguing?

Oh, but now who’s spoiling the fun?

Seriously, though, there must be better arguments against abortion that are more persuasive. That’s all I’m saying. The cardboard box story and the DNA criteria bit may seem great when preaching to the choir, but outside…

The difficulty is that what’s really being discussed is something more ethereal or metaphysical–what makes a human being a human being. On this side of things there’s theology, philosophy, magisterium, etc. which inform that understanding. But on the other side are folks who don’t recognize the authority of these things, or who hold different theological or philosophical perspectives entirely. Until there’s some sort of agreement on the terms of the discussion, it doesn’t look like much headway will be made. And one can shout that it’s murder and should be illegal all one wants, but until there’s a basic consensus on what makes a human being a human being, I’m afraid that making it illegal won’t happen anytime soon.

And because the argument is ultimately about metaphysics, I don’t think a secular government or a secular court can really decide the issue. It’s all a catch 22, politically speaking. Both sides can wrestle with how to best use the power of the state to get done what they feel should get done, but without a basic consensus on the metaphysical question, no matter what laws are passed or not passed, the question and the issue will remain: reversals and changes and additional legislation or repealing of legislation will remain a possibility as times change and the secular culture changes.

One can say, “But its evident that the unborn child is a child–look at the DNA, look at the shape and structures of the body–all human!” Sure. But when the response is, “It looks human, but I know it isn’t,” then where do you go? How do you convince someone who does not share your point of view, or your theological perspective that the unborn child is a human being deserving of a chance at life beyond the womb? I think it’s very very difficult. I came around because I realized my idea of what makes a human being a human being did not match up with what I profess to believe in terms of theology–that is, my argument for what makes a human human was different when discussing abortion than when discussing humanity in general. I had totally compartmentalized the abortion discussion so that it had nothing to do with my actual beliefs (probably in an attempt to convince myself I was a good liberal–but slavish adherence to any particular political creed is unwise). Anyway, I recognized the situation was untenable! But I believe in things like souls and theology, which made my change of heart easier. How to have this discussion with people who don’t believe in such things? Or who don’t share the same understanding of theology?

I don’t think cardboard boxes and DNA will cut it, somehow. What’s being discussed, what’s really at issue, is much more intangible. I don’t mean to sound hopeless, or suggest that nothing can be done, but until there’s a massive change of heart…

In the meantime–Is it possible to recognize that the legality of abortion is a political reality that will probably not change any time soon for a number of reasons, but work so that any perceived need for abortion no longer exists? So that regardless of its legal status, it’s just not on the table with regard to acceptable medical practices?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[dkoinzan]

All human arguments are flawed there is no way to explain a miracle. Life is a miracle. God bless anyone who can not only change their mind about abortion, but then admitt they were wrong to believe it was ok. Can you fathom how heaven rejoices when someone accepts Gods Grace and sees truth!!! How AWESOME!!! I would love to have the time you all put forth in the arguement! I can’t even keep up with the reading of the argument. Which Saint said to evangalize and if all else fails, use words? The answer bringing abortion to an end is to not allow for any of the culture of death to creep into you words, thoughts or action. Be a witness through all you do and say. With every breath serve Jesus. See Jesus in everyone.

There is my arguement against abortion:

Joseph Marie Koinzan
Joseph Marie Koinzan, son of Greg and Dana Koinzan, died fourteen weeks after conception. Joseph leaves behind two sisters; Mahkenna and Mia, and one brother, Jack. He was preceded in death by his sister Theresa.

Joseph accomplished so much in his fourteen weeks.  He began life at conception as a single cell.  He grew leaps and bounds in his short life.  At his death he was about six inches long and weighed about three ounces.  His little fingers and toes were perfectly formed and he even had little toe nails.  His little heart pumped 25 quarts of blood each day.  He could suck his thumb.  He had hair and he was able to blink his little eyes.

Joseph attended Mass at St. Michael’s Parish all his life.  Before his death Joseph was consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary by Fr. John Santos.  He was born after his death on November 6th, 2006.   Joseph’s name has been written in the book of Holy Innocence at the Shrine of Holy Innocence in New York.

May our Lord’s perpetual light shine upon Joseph and may he rest in peace.

 

[savienu]

All human arguments are flawed there is no way to explain a miracle. Life is a miracle. God bless anyone who can not only change their mind about abortion, but then admitt they were wrong to believe it was ok. Can you fathom how heaven rejoices when someone accepts Gods Grace and sees truth!!! How AWESOME!!! I would love to have the time you all put forth in the arguement! I can’t even keep up with the reading of the argument. Which Saint said to evangalize and if all else fails, use words? The answer bringing abortion to an end is to not allow for any of the culture of death to creep into you words, thoughts or action. Be a witness through all you do and say. With every breath serve Jesus. See Jesus in everyone.

There is my arguement against abortion:

Joseph Marie Koinzan
Joseph Marie Koinzan, son of Greg and Dana Koinzan, died fourteen weeks after conception. Joseph leaves behind two sisters; Mahkenna and Mia, and one brother, Jack. He was preceded in death by his sister Theresa.

Joseph accomplished so much in his fourteen weeks.  He began life at conception as a single cell.  He grew leaps and bounds in his short life.  At his death he was about six inches long and weighed about three ounces.  His little fingers and toes were perfectly formed and he even had little toe nails.  His little heart pumped 25 quarts of blood each day.  He could suck his thumb.  He had hair and he was able to blink his little eyes.

Joseph attended Mass at St. Michael’s Parish all his life.  Before his death Joseph was consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary by Fr. John Santos.  He was born after his death on November 6th, 2006.   Joseph’s name has been written in the book of Holy Innocence at the Shrine of Holy Innocence in New York.

May our Lord’s perpetual light shine upon Joseph and may he rest in peace.

Amen!

 

[st_lucy]

There is my arguement against abortion:

Joseph Marie Koinzan
Joseph Marie Koinzan, son of Greg and Dana Koinzan, died fourteen weeks after conception. Joseph leaves behind two sisters; Mahkenna and Mia, and one brother, Jack. He was preceded in death by his sister Theresa.

Joseph accomplished so much in his fourteen weeks.  He began life at conception as a single cell.  He grew leaps and bounds in his short life.  At his death he was about six inches long and weighed about three ounces.  His little fingers and toes were perfectly formed and he even had little toe nails.  His little heart pumped 25 quarts of blood each day.  He could suck his thumb.  He had hair and he was able to blink his little eyes.

Joseph attended Mass at St. Michael’s Parish all his life.  Before his death Joseph was consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary by Fr. John Santos.  He was born after his death on November 6th, 2006.   Joseph’s name has been written in the book of Holy Innocence at the Shrine of Holy Innocence in New York.

May our Lord’s perpetual light shine upon Joseph and may he rest in peace.

Hi dkoinzan,
I agree with this being the best way to argue against abortion. I too have lost children -three - before their birth and I find so hard to hear someone claim that my children where not human. I know that they were and they all touched my life in such a profound way.

 

[Tracyms1974]

It’s very simple, they just don’t know any better.

Planned parenthood just posted something like what, 1 billion $ in profits?

That’s not a small chunk of change by any limit, and any CEO would look like this: all the time, and forget about where the money comes from. Heck, he might even try to figure out how to sell all the “by product waste” of the process to make even more greenbacks!

All the while dropping millions of dollars into lobbyist funds to educate and indoctrinate the young Americans, who at this point are morally confused. Young people regard pregnancy as just another STD to be dealt with.

I said something about people not knowing any better earlier when I was talking about condoms earlier, but you have said it better here. You’re saying that those who DO know better are, in a way, USING those who honestly don’t know any better in order to further their own, greedy agendas. This is actually worse than my scenario of nearly everyone not knowing any better, and it is probably much more accurate. What is it that Jesus said in the Bible about misleading the least of His people or something? Well, He said it’s BAD.

I also like your comment about Jesus not just sitting idly by. I like to think of Him as the great Teacher myself. Oh yeah - “Somebody doesn’t get nailed to the cross by sitting in the corner.” I wish I hadn’t deleted that part. Anyway, in short, I agree with you.

Tracy

 

[Tracyms1974]

Why should we be surprised that Planned Parenthood made a profit? The Nazis made a profit off the concentration camps, didn’t they?

Call me stupid, but how did that happen? (Not saying it was right!) They had to pay for the gas and food and “disposal.” Looks to me it would have been a waste of money as well as an embarrassing statement on the evil potential of the human will. I’ll never get how Hitler sold the German people on the idea in the first place. People are people, ya know?

Tracy

 

[ribozyme]

It’s very simple, they just don’t know any better.

Planned parenthood just posted something like what, 1 billion $ in profits?
.

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. I was skeptical about that figure and their profits.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But your argument as stated only requires the DNA to be human and unique relative to the host. The communicable cancer is certainly that!

Please quote my post where I said that my argument “only requires the DNA to be human and unique relative to the host.”

You made that part up.

That having been said, I still think the story is about exercising general caution (particularly given the context that’s been given), and not specifically about abortion. It has as much to do with abortion as it does with exercising caution when opening doors quickly in heavily trafficked areas. In fact, it has more to do with opening doors quickly in heavily trafficked areas than abortion. So… I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.

Gee, a story that is about “about exercising general caution” to avoid killing a fellow human being can’t be used to show how we should exercise general caution to avoid killing a fellow human being!:whacky:

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Please quote my post where I said that my argument “only requires the DNA to be human and unique relative to the host.”

You made that part up.

I don’t think I made it up…but I could have misread your final criterion. Here it is:

“ But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.”

The uniqueness of the child’s DNA is determined only with reference to its mother. By analogy, the uniqueness of the cancer’s DNA would be determined only with reference to its host.

But I’ll drop the “cancer argument” and proceed with the “clone argument” which asks–given your criteria, would a cloned fetus be a human being, given that (by your reckoning) it does not satsify the third condition of your criteria for determining human beingness as it does not have unique DNA? And before you dismiss this as a ridiculous argument, consider the progress of stem cell research, among other things. If you do not have to answer this question now, you will have to in the next couple years.

Gee, a story that is about “about exercising general caution” to avoid killing a fellow human being can’t be used to show how we should exercise general caution to avoid killing a fellow human being!:whacky:

But that’s the point, Vern! It’s so general as to be universally applicable! It has no special application to the abortion issue! It sheds no insight! You tell the story to someone, they look at you funny and say, “Okay–I’ll check before I shoot.” You say, “No no no. That’s not the point. This is about abortion.” The response is, “I’m not an abortionist, I don’t have to worry.” You say, “But it’s important to the abortion issue.” The response, “Okay then. Tell an abortionist. See if it has any sort of impact.” It just seems like the story wants to be much more important and much more applicable than it is. Ultimately it says, “Be careful!” Okay! Caution signs say as much, and with fewer words.

But I’ll drop it Vern. I don’t think either of us is getting anywhere with this!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t think I made it up…but I could have misread your final criterion. Here it is:

“ But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.”

The uniqueness of the child’s DNA is determined only with reference to its mother. By analogy, the uniqueness of the cancer’s DNA would be determined only with reference to its host.

Who stands in lieu of the mother.

Nice try, but no cigar.

But I’ll drop the “cancer argument” and proceed with the “clone argument” which asks–given your criteria, would a cloned fetus be a human being, given that (by your reckoning) it does not satsify the third condition of your criteria for determining human beingness as it does not have unique DNA?

Cloned human beings do not have the mother’s DNA.

In fact, one of the Apostles was a clone.

And before you dismiss this as a ridiculous argument, consider the progress of stem cell research, among other things. If you do not have to answer this question now, you will have to in the next couple years.

Already answered – even clones have mothers.

But that’s the point, Vern! It’s so general as to be universally applicable!

Wow! A **universally applicable **explanation isn’t applicable to abortion?

But I’ll drop it Vern. I don’t think either of us is getting anywhere with this!

Sophistry will never get anyone anywhere.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I thought I was dropping these arguments…

Who stands in lieu of the mother.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Cloned human beings do not have the mother’s DNA.

In fact, one of the Apostles was a clone.

I think you’re having a difficult time with the syllogism here, Vern. Mother is to child as host is to communicable cancer.

So explain to me again your argument re: the communicable cancer not being a human being-- that because its DNA is different from its host’s but not itself unique (as it derives from another person), it is not a human being? And how is an artificially bio-engineered clone still a human being according to your criteria?

Look, Vern. I’ll level with you. My biggest problem with your argument is that it’s reductive–it attempts to argue that human DNA=human being. That a human body=a human being. I don’t buy it–the dead bodies I’ve seen at funerals, in morgues were human beings, but they aren’t now. I just don’t buy it. It’s materialistic and reductive. It denies the realities of the spirit in favor of the relative banalities of DNA. I don’t buy it.

As dkoinzan so eloquently expressed, what we’re talking about is the miracle of life. The mystery of life. DNA is wonderful and everything, but an argument solely based on it is an argument which has no room for mystery, and having no room for mystery, there is little that can be determined with reference to the human soul or the human being. You can’t convince me otherwise, Vern. You can’t. You won’t.

Maybe I’m being silly, but I refuse to live in a universe without mystery, without a sense of the sacred or the sacramental. You can have it if you like. But I don’t want it.

Wow! A **universally applicable **explanation isn’t applicable to abortion?

Of course it’s applicable to abortion–but not specifically, especially, or revealingly. It’s like getting a group of folks together to look at a white wall. One of them says, “It’s a white wall,” as if it were a revelation. But what does it add to the conversation? It’s true enough–it’s a white wall. But that was a given. Everyone knows. It’s stating the obvious as if it were obscure.

Maybe my continued willingness to argue thepoint has to do with an initial frustration–why am I expected to think this is particularly profound? I’m still wondering.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I thought I was dropping these arguments…

I wish you would – it’s getting boring plowing the same old ground over and over and over,

I think you’re having a difficult time with the syllogism here, Vern. Mother is to child as host is to communicable cancer.

Nope. The mother is the progenator, not the wetnurse.

Therefore, the original victim of the communicable cancer is the key, not later persons infected.

So explain to me again your argument re: the communicable cancer not being a human being-- that because its DNA is different from its host’s but not itself unique (as it derives from another person), it is not a human being?

Correct.

And how is an artificially bio-engineered clone still a human being according to your criteria?

There are no artificially bio-engineered human clones. And if there were, they’d be human under the same rule as the original donor.

Look, Vern. I’ll level with you. My biggest problem with your argument is that it’s reductive–it attempts to argue that human DNA=human being. That a human body=a human being. I don’t buy it–the dead bodies I’ve seen at funerals, in morgues were human beings, but they aren’t now. I just don’t buy it. It’s materialistic and reductive. It denies the realities of the spirit in favor of the relative banalities of DNA. I don’t buy it.

Let me try to understand you – and you saying that since human beings can die, there are no human beings?

The test I set up is three-fold:

Is it living? That automatically rules out any red herrings about dead bodies.

Is it human? The DNA proves that.

Is it a being? If it has its own DNA – not it’s mothers, not the slightly modified DNA of the original cancer patient – then it’s a human being.

As dkoinzan so eloquently expressed, what we’re talking about is the miracle of life. The mystery of life. DNA is wonderful and everything, but an argument solely based on it is an argument which has no room for mystery, and having no room for mystery, there is little that can be determined with reference to the human soul or the human being. You can’t convince me otherwise, Vern. You can’t. You won’t.

So you reject Einstein’s equations because they are mathematical, and have no “mystery?”

Maybe I’m being silly, but I refuse to live in a universe without mystery, without a sense of the sacred or the sacramental. You can have it if you like. But I don’t want it.

And with that argument, you have departed from the realm of logic and entered the realm of emotion.

Of course it’s applicable to abortion–but not specifically, especially, or revealingly. It’s like getting a group of folks together to look at a white wall. One of them says, “It’s a white wall,” as if it were a revelation. But what does it add to the conversation? It’s true enough–it’s a white wall. But that was a given. Everyone knows. It’s stating the obvious as if it were obscure.

So why do you argue against the obvious?

Maybe my continued willingness to argue thepoint has to do with an initial frustration–why am I expected to think this is particularly profound? I’m still wondering.

Frustration is also an emotion.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I wish you would – it’s getting boring plowing the same old ground over and over and over,

I do it in an attempt to clarify both my and your arguments.

Nope. The mother is the progenator, not the wetnurse.

And here’s the problem–that “Nope.” You don’t agree withthe syllogism, so you reject it.

Which begs the question–are your three criteria general principles for determining whether or not something is generally a human being, or whether or not something is a human child specifically? I think context is key, here. I have been assuming that your principles are meant to be generally applicable, and that you have lately been back-engineering limitations and exceptions to your argument.

Therefore, the original victim of the communicable cancer is the key, not later persons infected.

Only in a very specific context. I see where our prolem is.

There are no artificially bio-engineered human clones. And if there were, they’d be human under the same rule as the original donor.

So you would see such a being as a mere duplication of someone else, rather than as the production of a unique human being which, though having its DNA in common with someone else, nonetheless has its own soul?

Let me try to understand you – and you saying that since human beings can die, there are no human beings?

No–I’m saying that because I believe that the soul is the form of the body I believe the following:

1–From conception, insofar as the fetus is living, it is joined to a human soul, without which the fetus would not be living. (Simple enough!)
2–A dead body is not a human being, but is a human body absent its form–absent its principle. If a human being is body and soul, a dead body cannot be a human being (as itis lacking its soul). If a human body is living, there must be a soul animating it.

So you reject Einstein’s equations because they are mathematical, and have no “mystery?”

I don’t reject them, but understand them as only partially describing the universe. As our brother Shakespeare writes, “There is more in heaven and on earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio. Er. I mean. Vern.”

And with that argument, you have departed from the realm of logic and entered the realm of emotion.

I don’t know. Perhaps. Maybe you and I just have different cosmologies–mine has mystery in it. The way I understand the universe, it is sacramental. A universe that is not sacramental, therefore, is not the universe, at least to my reckoning. It’s like arguing with someone who says “Jesus was a wonderful teacher.” Well. Sure he was. But if the Jesus that person is talking about isn’t also the Son of God, the Word made flesh, then we’re talking about two different Jesuses.

So why do you argue against the obvious?

I’m not arguing against the obvious, but questioning the usefulness of arguing for it.

Frustration is also an emotion.

Sure it is. I never claimed to be lacking in emotion. I’m just not a fan of sentimentality.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[aboverubies]

What is it that Jesus said in the Bible about misleading the least of His people or something? Well, He said it’s BAD.

Tracy

Luke 17:2: “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do it in an attempt to clarify both my and your arguments.

You’re not succeeding.

And here’s the problem–that “Nope.” You don’t agree withthe syllogism, so you reject it.

It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing – it’s not a valid syllogism. The umpteenth person infected with the cancer is not the cancer’s “mother.”

Which begs the question–

Do understand the meaning of the phrase, “begs the question?”

are your three criteria general principles for determining whether or not something is generally a human being, or whether or not something is a human child specifically? I think context is key, here. I have been assuming that your principles are meant to be generally applicable,

They are genrally applicable – an old person in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s fits them too (old people do grow – replacement cells.)

and that you have lately been back-engineering limitations and exceptions to your argument.

No, you’ve been trying all sorts of sophistry to try to get around them, and I have patiently explained your errors.

So you would see such a being as a mere duplication of someone else, rather than as the production of a unique human being which, though having its DNA in common with someone else, nonetheless has its own soul?

No. As I said, one of the Apostles was a clone. And Saint Thomas was fully human.

No–I’m saying that because I believe that the soul is the form of the body I believe the following:

No, you’re saying that to erect a bogus argument.

1–From conception, insofar as the fetus is living, it is joined to a human soul, without which the fetus would not be living. (Simple enough!)

How about that?

2–A dead body is not a human being, but is a human body absent its form–absent its principle. If a human being is body and soul, a dead body cannot be a human being (as itis lacking its soul). If a human body is living, there must be a soul animating it.

How about that?

It doesn’t grow, either, does it?

I don’t reject them, but understand them as only partially describing the universe. As our brother Shakespeare writes, “There is more in heaven and on earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio. Er. I mean. Vern.”

True – but I don’t need sophistry to make my arguments.

I don’t know. Perhaps. Maybe you and I just have different cosmologies–mine has mystery in it. The way I understand the universe, it is sacramental. A universe that is not sacramental, therefore, is not the universe, at least to my reckoning. It’s like arguing with someone who says “Jesus was a wonderful teacher.” Well. Sure he was. But if the Jesus that person is talking about isn’t also the Son of God, the Word made flesh, then we’re talking about two different Jesuses.

What has that got to do with this thread?

I’m not arguing against the obvious, but questioning the usefulness of arguing for it.

It is useful when debating with someone who makes a practice of denying the obvious.

Sure it is. I never claimed to be lacking in emotion. I’m just not a fan of sentimentality.

I would say when you substitute emotion for logic, you are hard put to defend that claim.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You’re not succeeding.

Well…try try again, as they say. I believe in perseverence.

It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing – it’s not a valid syllogism. The umpteenth person infected with the cancer is not the cancer’s “mother.”

I think it isn’t valid because you don’t want it to be.

Do understand the meaning of the phrase, “begs the question?”

It’s just an idiom meaning something like, “requires, demands, or strongly suggests that this question be asked.”

No, you’ve been trying all sorts of sophistry to try to get around them, and I have patiently explained your errors.

Re: the accusation of sophistry–I have not been insincere, nor have I argued with an intent to deceive. I can appreciate your own frustration, but it doesn’tt warrant accusing me of sophistry (basically calling me a liar).

Maybe I’m just missing something, Vern. Maybe there’s something in your arguments I just can’t see. Maybe there’s something preventing me from seeing it. And maybe I’m arguing with you in order to try to figure out what that thing is, and in the process, trying to learn where you’re coming from. Maybe it’s a losing battle. I don’t know. But for all the frustration we’ve been through, if I genuinely didn’t care, would I still be here in this forum with you?

I mean, sure, I have a point of view and I’d love for you to be able to see it and respect it, but having very little hope for that happening, maybe I continue to come here to try and learn how to better see and respect your point of view.

No, you’re saying that to erect a bogus argument.

What bogus argument?

What has that got to do with this thread?

An illustration that we’re perhaps talking about two different things, two different versions of the universe.

It is useful when debating with someone who makes a practice of denying the obvious.

I never denied the obvious…I think, though, that you assume that what is obvious to you is obvious to others, and when it is not, you are less willing to explain your POV and more willing to insist on it.

And writing that, I see that I must condemn myself of the same fallacy. I’ve been arguing with you as if you took my worldview for granted–as if you and I valued the same things…and I’ve been subtly insisting that what I value should be what you value. I apologize for that. I mean that sincerely.

I would say when you substitute emotion for logic, you are hard put to defend that claim.

I don’t know…substituting emotion for logic is indeed not so good in terms of an argument, and I accept the criticism that I have done so, though I do not apologize for it, at least not insofar as that apology would mean apologizing for my worldview.

But a display of emotion and a display of sentimentality remain two different things, no matter how you slice it. For instance, the film “Taxi Driver” is not a particularly sentimental film, but it is disturbing, and powerfully, dramatically emotional. “The Harvey Girls,” however, is a bit sentimental and twee.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!