Intellectual Blindness

[Dameedna]

i dont follow as to how there can really be some gray area here. if you are killing someone it is murder, plain and simple. if you do it in defense of your own life it is called self defense. other than that what possible reason could one have to commit the homicide of abortion?

I’d like to answer you warp, but the point of the OP was that to claim a fetus as anything other than a human intellectual blindness.

I do support it and I have my reasons. If you’d like to start another thread(there have been many) I will try and respond.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

And when it acquires this functioning brain, should we then grant it the legal status of a human person? Or should we wait until actual birth, like some of the pro-choice people say. Or should we begin to consider the life valuable and worth saving at one year, or at adolescence, or maybe the age of reason? I don’t understand how we can decide when a life has value-unless perhaps we don’t value human life so highly to begin with.

This is pretty much the debate, amongst those that can debate it with any compromise at all.

When, does a “fetus” gain rights?

The most common area that we look at, is what actually makes us human, as opposed to a simple strand of DNA(that all life forms have). It’s not that we live as all live…lives(obviously). It isn’t that we feel physical sensations, most life forms do this.

It is our self-awareness that defines us as humans. It is our recognition that we actually live that makes us different. That’s what makes us a human animal, rather than any other kind of animal(or life form).

So the question, for the pro-choice crowd is when does our difference kick in? That is what the debate is really about for us.

Any claims to “us” belonging to God, any claims that God say’s it’s wrong are ludicrious to most as they are just claims based on nothing other than a belief. Let’s see what actually makes us different in the only world we can observe.

Where do we draw the line? That is the question. What can and what does abortion do to us as a society? That is another good question.

What REALLY confuses those that are pro-life, is that the pro-choice crowd, is often very against capital punishment. Seems a complete contradiction to them.

 

[Dameedna]

Pro-abortionists don’t care about the child. Their focus is on the mother, and associated factors. *‘Out-of-sight-out-of-mind’ thinking *also contributes. Because the baby can’t be seen, it’s easier for some to kill it.

See the language used here? It’s very telling.

Pro-abortion. No-one is pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.

But you are also about choice aren’t you? Just not THIS choice, so you call it pro-abortion.

I could also call Pro-lifers, anti-choice, because I am all for life and support abortion, you are against choice.

The words we use, really define how we see this, and it never really reflects our actual positions.

 

[Dameedna]

Fran,

Human life does not begin at conception. It continues at conception.

This, is a very key point to this debate also.

human Life, doesn’t actually begin at conception within the womb itself. Life began(human life included), billions of years ago, and it is constantly changing and growing and reproducing itself.

Let’s repeat that, Life * including * human life doesn’t actually begin, at conception. The human sperm is alive, the human egg is alive so there is no part of this equation that can define human life in an absolute way. It’s actual “conception” is a mystery.

 

[fhansen]

So the question, for the pro-choice crowd is when does our difference kick in? That is what the debate is really about for us.

Of course for pro-lifers the problem is made more serious by the fact that we believe there to be an inherent sanctity to life which by itself removes the question altogether from being a mere scientific one-especially in light of the fact that science can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint a magical time when the fetus “becomes human”. It’s also confusing that pro-choicers frequently express a reluctance to abort-as if it should be a last resort-and this seems inconsistent with the claim that the fetus is just a “blob of tissue.” Abortion does have it’s affect on society-how we treat each other, at any stage, determines in large part the quality of our lives.

 

[fhansen]

This, is a very key point to this debate also.

human Life, doesn’t actually begin at conception within the womb itself. Life began(human life included), billions of years ago, and it is constantly changing and growing and reproducing itself.

Let’s repeat that, Life * including * human life doesn’t actually begin, at conception. The human sperm is alive, the human egg is alive so there is no part of this equation that can define human life in an absolute way. It’s actual “conception” is a mystery.

I’m not sure what this means but if the statement, “Human life does not begin at conception. It continues at conception.”, somehow supports the argument for abortion, it would likewise support an argument for the taking of human life at any stage.

 

[fhansen]

And we as humans have certainly decided that it is ethically right to kill one another, or else we wouldn’t be so fond of doing it.

I think this is backwards. I believe that our fondness for doing it comes first and our justifying it comes second.

 

[Dameedna]

I’m not sure what this means but if the statement, “Human life does not begin at conception. It continues at conception.”, somehow supports the argument for abortion, it would likewise support an argument for the taking of human life at any stage.

The argument given by many pro-lifers, is that we cannot end human life via abortion or even by the use of the pill is because human life begins at conception(sperm and egg meeting).

What the statment you are questioning means is that life does not in fact begin at conception via the egg and sperm.

If you are going to have an argument as to why we should not abort, it cannot be based on “life began at conception” because that is not true. Life began billions of years ago.

Your support of the pro-life stance needs to be based on something else for it to be a valid argument.

The fact that life began billions of years ago is not a justification for anything. It is simply a fact.(as much as we can determine at this point in our human history/knowledge)

Cheers

 

[fhansen]

The argument given by many pro-lifers, is that we cannot end human life via abortion or even by the use of the pill is because life begins at conception(sperm and egg meeting).

What the statment you are questioning means, is that life does not in fact begin at conception via the egg and sperm.

Therefore, if you are going to have an argument as to why we should not abort, it cannot be based on “life began at conception” because that is not true. Life began billions of years ago.

Your support of the pro-life stance needs to be based on something else for it to be a valid argument.

Cheers

Well…as a rule laws protect humans as individuals rather than collectively so I still don’t follow this argument. Just because you might in some sense have begun billions of years ago shouldn’t give anyone the moral or legal right to terminate you. In any case, we believe that taking a life at any stage is intrinsically evil so we don’t need to come up with a point in time when it’s not alright.

 

[crowonsnow]

If you are going to have an argument as to why we should not abort, it cannot be based on “life began at conception” because that is not true. Life began billions of years ago.

And to say “life begins at conception” is a bit of a redundant misnomer. To conceive means to bring about, to begin. Saying that life begins at conception is saying that life begins at the beginning.

Rather, and to be more accurate, pro-lifers are stating that life begins at fertilization. This is also not accurate as both sperm and egg are already alive.

And fertilization itself is a process. There is no magic moment. It literally takes time to happen, same as the subsequent development of the fetus.

What clearly does occur is that at some point in the development of this fetus, a development which includes the process of fertilization, a brain and brain waves and other features that we recognize and identify as being distinct and individual, occurs.

 

[Dameedna]

Well…as a rule laws protect humans as individuals rather than collectively so I still don’t follow this argument. Just because you might in some sense have begun billions of years ago shouldn’t give anyone the moral or legal right to terminate you. In any case, we believe that taking a life at any stage is intrinsically evil so we don’t need to come up with a point in time when it’s not alright.

You believing something is fine. You claiming that life begins at conception is wrong. It doesn’t begin at that point, as the egg and sperm are alive.

You believing that taking a life at any stage as evil, well…you kill animals all the time for meat and probably do not bat an eyelid so does that make you evil?

But you are not taking a HUMAN life are you? so that’s okay. Human life to you is a unique strand of DNA caused, by the act of conception and defines that as the beginning of life, which it is not, since it began millions of years ago. So we are at square one.

When life began does not give us rights to terminate it. The right to terminate a life, has to be justified by some means other than “when” life began.

You are looking for an absolute that in this case doesn’t exist. You are looking for a rule of thumb. When it comes to life itself there is none. It began, billions of years ago.

It is not a justification for, or against anything. It’s just our reality.

So we actually have 2 concepts.

1. Life begins at conception - Not true, it began billions of years ago.
2. When life began, cannot be used as an argument for the preservation of life(this came from you)

We can actually go from there within this debate but not until this is actually agreed to.

And for religious folks, it probably won’t ever be agreed to. Use it as a thinking exercise I guess.

 

[Dameedna]

I think this is backwards. I believe that our fondness for doing it comes first and our justifying it comes second.

This would make a great thread actually. I completely disagree . People actually despise hurting one-another. Why do we do it all the time? What are our reasons?

Why do most people justify doing things that we consider to be horrific in the name of good?

Good thread topic.

 

[fhansen]

This would make a great thread actually. I completely disagree . People actually despise hurting one-another. Why do we do it all the time? What are our reasons?

Why do most people justify doing things that we consider to be horrific in the name of good?

Good thread topic.

Fondness is probably not the right word- at least in most cases. The point is that a desire to do evil against others occurs-sometimes to a completely unreasonable extent-and then we seek to justify the act so we can commit it.

 

[fhansen]

You believing something is fine. You claiming that life begins at conception is wrong. It doesn’t begin at that point, as the egg and sperm are alive.

So what’s the point? Unless an egg or sperm unite they remain an egg or sperm-no human being occurs-nothing to give legal status to-nothing to protect, nothing that can experience pain or suffering or the loss of life. It’s the concentration of life into an actual individual being that gives it a unique value and identity. That’s why you never hear of sperm and eggs debating the ethics of topics like abortion, or curing diseases, feeding the poor, murdering, stealing, whatever. Your argument may as well be one which would deny all individual rights to anyone. Somehow, I’ve never heard of a human being defined as something existing prior to its own conception. Does a painting exist just because paint and canvas do?

 

[Highwayhound]

Let me state that I have no intent to mock or insult anyone’s thoughts. This is why I am not directly quoting the statements. All statements were taken from previous posts in this thread.

Intellectual blindness concerning the statement, “Life begins at conception”:

1. If you are going to have an argument as to why we should not abort, it cannot be based on “life began at conception” because that is not true. Life began billions of years ago.
2. Let’s repeat that, Life including human life doesn’t actually begin, at conception. The human sperm is alive, the human egg is alive so there is no part of this equation that can define human life in an absolute way. It’s actual “conception” is a mystery.
3. A fertilized egg, a sperm and an unfertilized egg are all human.
4. And to say “life begins at conception” is a bit of a redundant misnomer. To conceive means to bring about, to begin. Saying that life begins at conception is saying that life begins at the beginning.
5. Rather, and to be more accurate, pro-lifers are stating that life begins at fertilization. This is also not accurate as both sperm and egg are already alive.
6. You claiming that life begins at conception is wrong. It doesn’t begin at that point, as the egg and sperm are alive.

All six of these statements ignore the point of “life begins at conception”. It is not a philosophical statement, nor a historical one, but a statement of fact which says a new unique human being is formed at conception. No two ways about it. This new human being given time, care and nourishment will live a long life.

These following statements ignore the uniqueness of humans:

1. It is our recognition that we actually live that makes us different. That’s what makes us a human animal
2. You believing that taking a life at any stage as evil, well…you kill animals all the time for meat and probably do not bat an eyelid so does that make you evil?

It is because we as humans have a spiritual essence (i.e. soul) that we can conceive of concepts such as justice or preventing cruelty to animals. Which is why one Michael Vick is in prison. If we are simply a higher form of animal we would not have justice.

Absolute:

1. You are looking for an absolute that in this case doesn’t exist.

An absolute does exist. When you have a sperm and ova you have potential, but when the two are joined then that potential is realized in a new unique human being.

A noble and worthy sentiment:

1. People actually despise hurting one-another.

This is a noble sentiment and shows that this person does have a good soul. In the real world this is not born out by history. Does the name Nick Berg ring a bell? He was beheaded and the video was sent out to make political points. Did the killers of St. Maximilian Kolbe show any compassion? (Two weeks in a starvation room without food or water and then they injected St. Kolbe with acid to finish him off.) There are cruel evil people who give no thought to the hurting or killing of other human beings.

Again I am not trying to mock or insult anyone.

God bless

 

[Psychotheosophy]

1. People actually despise hurting one-another.

This is a noble sentiment and shows that this person does have a good soul. In the real world this is not born out by history. Does the name Nick Berg ring a bell? He was beheaded and the video was sent out to make political points. Did the killers of St. Maximilian Kolbe show any compassion? (Two weeks in a starvation room without food or water and then they injected St. Kolbe with acid to finish him off.) There are cruel evil people who give no thought to the hurting or killing of other human beings.

Everyone naturally seek goodness
But everyone has trouble defining it

Because
Despite our intentions

1. people are illogical at times
2. people don’t always have all relevant information
3. people are not always sensitive to what feels right

And so we can do evil
thinking we are doing good
And this is due
to original sin

All the more reason to trust in God
who is Goodness and Truth

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Everyone naturally seek goodness
But everyone has trouble defining it

Because
Despite our intentions

1. people are illogical at times
2. people don’t always have all relevant information
3. people are not always sensitive to what feels right

And so we can do evil
thinking we are doing good
And this is due
to original sin

All the more reason to trust in God
who is Goodness and Truth

And we can trust in God
in our original sin

Because

1. God is Existence
   Which we naturally seek
   And
   Existence is the principle of logic
   Which exposes illogic
2. God is Existence
   Which we naturally seek
   And
   Existence can make nonexistent information
   existent
3. God is Goodness
   Which we all naturally seek
   And
   If we do not feel good about something
   Maybe God is telling us something

 

[Psychotheosophy]

1. God is Existence
   Which we naturally seek
   And
   Existence is the principle of logic
   Which exposes illogic

And
Since God is Form
And
Form gives Existence
By Forming
Then
God not only exposes illogic
But
God gives us logical form

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Intellectual Blindness

There is one thing I cannot understand about modern thinking.

It is the question of how anybody with any grasp of high school biology can turn round and think that abortion is not the taking of human life.

This is the most amazing proof of human stupidity that I can think of.

Thoughts?

Paul

People don’t quite pay attention to the one occupying the body. They are more concerned with the body itself, which I personally think is selfish.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood