School stem cell discussion PART I

[dylanschrader]

Kelly, here are some things to ponder.

What is innocence? If innocence is being without sin, then you need to seriously consider the teachings of the church. People can correct me if I’m wrong but original sin is ascribed to the soul of all people. At the time that decision was made, people were not considered alive until they were born. If life begins at conception, then isn’t the soul given at conception and therefore the burden of original sin makes the unborn child less than innocent? If the soul is given at birth, then the unborn child is soulless like the beasts of the Earth.

Perhaps the soul is given at conception, but original sin is not ascribed till birth. That would be one opinion that is not supported by any testimony that would solve the dilemma.

The church gives no guidance as to where the soul presumed of an unborn child goes. At one point, limbo was an accepted place between Heaven and Hell because it was unacceptable for an unbaptized newborn child with original sin to go to Hell if they died shortly after being born.

Is pro-life actually pro-life since they make no effort to save the 30,000 babies that die each year in the US from spontaneous abortion. Controls can be put in place to keep the majority of those babies alive, but they are very intrusive to people’s lives. What is most important, saving the lives of babies or being intrusive to everyone’s lives? How do we know that God doesn’t want us to put those controls in place to save as many babies as we can? After all, God created nature and commands man to manipulate nature for man’s benefit as long as that benefit s not a sin.

Conversely, how do we know that God did not purposely make unborn babies soulless to allow us to perform ESCR without sin?

Believing what you are told to believe, just because you are told to believe it, renders useless the intellect God commands you to use for our benefit.

Unborn babies have to have souls or they wouldn’t be alive. Also, original sin exists in every human being’s soul from the moment of that soul’s existence (except for Adam, Eve, Mary, and Christ) until it is forgiven.

Unborn babies are “innocent” of actual sin not original sin. Even then, when the Church talks about the killing of innocents, she is talking about those who are innocent in the matter being discussed.

It’s not irrational to believe what you’re told just because you are told to believe it as long as the one telling you is credible. This is why we believe things on God’s word–God is absolutely credible, being incapable of deceit.

 

[dylanschrader]

Objectively true things are not subject to opinion. These are things like mathematics. There are some that would even argue the truth of mathematics. It is difficult to name one objective truth that is not mathematical in nature.

Testimony of others is something that is accepted, not objective. As odd as it may sound, few of us can attest to the accepted fact that the Earth is round(ish). Round Earth was not accepted even after theorized mathematically and eventually proven by observation but in some groups a flat Earth is still an accepted truth. Therefore, a truth is useless unless people without the capability of verifying that truth choose to believe it. Then that truth is actually subjective to the believer that cannot verify it. We can all verify that 1+1=2, but it is an accepted fact that the Earth is round because few can actually verify it by observation. Then you can even introduce the accepted fact that people will tend to observe only those pieces that support their original beliefs.

If you sit down and identify all the objectively true things you will find nothing pointing to a direction in life. It is impossible to live by objective truth because there is so little of it. Therefore all you are really left to live by is accepted fact that may not be verifiable by you and opinion that you incorrectly accept as objective fact.

If something is true in reality independently of our minds, then it is an objective truth. It does not have to be a priori to be objectively true.

A truth is not objective or subjective depending on whether it’s believed by anyone. Objective truths don’t depend on anyone. Subjective truths do. An example of a subjective truth is “vanilla ice cream is the best.” Maybe true for me, maybe not for you. An example of an objective “there is a God.” True whether I believe it or not.

Not all objective truths are known by us or are verifiable by reason alone. I don’t know how many craters there are on the dark side of the moon, but it’s objectively true that there is a certain number of craters on the dark side of the moon. Just because I don’t know and have no practical way of finding out doesn’t mean that those craters don’t exist.

Human beings are a certain way. Knowing how we exist, what faculties we have, etc. can lead us to conclude what the purpose of human existence is. Once we know that, we know that we should live in a way that will allow our nature to be perfected, that will fulfill that purpose.

 

[wrlang]

Unborn babies have to have souls or they wouldn’t be alive. Also, original sin exists in every human being’s soul from the moment of that soul’s existence (except for Adam, Eve, Mary, and Christ) until it is forgiven.

Unborn babies are “innocent” of actual sin not original sin. Even then, when the Church talks about the killing of innocents, she is talking about those who are innocent in the matter being discussed.

It’s not irrational to believe what you’re told just because you are told to believe it as long as the one telling you is credible. This is why we believe things on God’s word–God is absolutely credible, being incapable of deceit.

You’d probably get some arguments saying that a person has to have a soul to be alive. But it can be acceptable that an animal is alive without a soul and a person can only be alive if they have a soul. But then the definition of life is clouded unless you segregate the animal life from human life. Accepting your conjecture that humans cannot be alive without a soul, a person born with very limited brain function can be baptized, but cannot repent for sins and accept God. They must also be considered innocent until they commit some actual sin and then their mental faculties prevent them from repenting and accepting God. If you don’t accept the inherent unfairness for a severely handicapped person to be judged a sinner in the eyes of God, then you must have a certain amount of mental faculties as a requirement to be forgiven.

Can a child guilty of only original sin be allowed into Heaven? If not, what does being innocent matter if the way to Heaven is blocked by either actual sin or original sin? The opportunity to be forgiven is not provided for those 30,000 victims of spontaneous abortion every year. If the answer is that the second coming forgives all original sin, then it could be said that aborted babies are actually under less risk of not entering Heaven because they cannot obtain actual sin and all they need to wait for is the forgiveness of Christ’s second coming. A rather clinical viewpoint, but none the less a valid argument.

It is always rational to believe a credible source. But that must be recognized as a circular argument where men are concerned. In most cases a credible source is given credibility based on the credibility of other sources. God’s word is credible and absolute and contains no deceit and therefore never contains any ambiguities. Words containing ambiguities must be the work of man because of man’s imperfect thought and expression. Ambiguities allow multiple interpretations and therefore those interpretations in and of themselves prove that the words interpreted must not be God’s words.

 

[wrlang]

If something is true in reality independently of our minds, then it is an objective truth. It does not have to be a priori to be objectively true.

A truth is not objective or subjective depending on whether it’s believed by anyone. Objective truths don’t depend on anyone. Subjective truths do. An example of a subjective truth is “vanilla ice cream is the best.” Maybe true for me, maybe not for you. An example of an objective “there is a God.” True whether I believe it or not.

Not all objective truths are known by us or are verifiable by reason alone. I don’t know how many craters there are on the dark side of the moon, but it’s objectively true that there is a certain number of craters on the dark side of the moon. Just because I don’t know and have no practical way of finding out doesn’t mean that those craters don’t exist.

Human beings are a certain way. Knowing how we exist, what faculties we have, etc. can lead us to conclude what the purpose of human existence is. Once we know that, we know that we should live in a way that will allow our nature to be perfected, that will fulfill that purpose.

An objective truth certainly doesn’t have to be believed to be true. But then an objective truth that is not believed is useless for the whole of humanity. Examples are Galileo’s calculations that the Earth revolved around the sun and the Earth was not the center of the universe, which got him lifetime house arrest for heresy. And another one is, there is a God. Some would argue the latter isn’t an objective truth, but a belief.

One can assume there are craters on the dark side of the moon based on theory, and in fact since astronauts have visited the dark side of the moon. I often feed Schroedinger’s Cat.

One can say that the purpose of humanity is to exist, but that would be mundane compared to some higher purpose, assuming or believing that a higher purpose exists. Without a higher purpose, we are nothing more than animals. And it would appear we are endowed with more than simple animalistic capabilities.

 

[dylanschrader]

You’d probably get some arguments saying that a person has to have a soul to be alive. But it can be acceptable that an animal is alive without a soul and a person can only be alive if they have a soul. But then the definition of life is clouded unless you segregate the animal life from human life. Accepting your conjecture that humans cannot be alive without a soul, a person born with very limited brain function can be baptized, but cannot repent for sins and accept God. They must also be considered innocent until they commit some actual sin and then their mental faculties prevent them from repenting and accepting God. If you don’t accept the inherent unfairness for a severely handicapped person to be judged a sinner in the eyes of God, then you must have a certain amount of mental faculties as a requirement to be forgiven.

Can a child guilty of only original sin be allowed into Heaven? If not, what does being innocent matter if the way to Heaven is blocked by either actual sin or original sin? The opportunity to be forgiven is not provided for those 30,000 victims of spontaneous abortion every year. If the answer is that the second coming forgives all original sin, then it could be said that aborted babies are actually under less risk of not entering Heaven because they cannot obtain actual sin and all they need to wait for is the forgiveness of Christ’s second coming. A rather clinical viewpoint, but none the less a valid argument.

It is always rational to believe a credible source. But that must be recognized as a circular argument where men are concerned. In most cases a credible source is given credibility based on the credibility of other sources. God’s word is credible and absolute and contains no deceit and therefore never contains any ambiguities. Words containing ambiguities must be the work of man because of man’s imperfect thought and expression. Ambiguities allow multiple interpretations and therefore those interpretations in and of themselves prove that the words interpreted must not be God’s words.

There are different types of souls. I’m using the word ‘soul’ here in a somewhat technical sense to mean the “life principle” of a thing, that is, the thing that makes a material being alive. Plants have vegetative souls and animals have sensible souls. Both of these types of souls are material. Human beings, however, have spiritual souls which are rational, have free will, etc. A spiritual soul is the only type of soul that a human being can have. It is true that at times it was posited that human beings went through stages of “soul development” or “ensoulment,” but those beliefs were due more to a poor understanding of biology which has been corrected in modern times. The Church recognizes that since embryos are a distinct human life from the moment of conception, they must have spiritual souls.

To be capable of actual sin, one must have use of the will. Those with severe disabilities whose use of the will is impaired are not capable of actual sin. Those who die with only original sin do not merit Hell, and the Church teaches that we can hope that God will save them in a way unknown to us.

 

[dylanschrader]

An objective truth certainly doesn’t have to be believed to be true. But then an objective truth that is not believed is useless for the whole of humanity. Examples are Galileo’s calculations that the Earth revolved around the sun and the Earth was not the center of the universe, which got him lifetime house arrest for heresy. And another one is, there is a God. Some would argue the latter isn’t an objective truth, but a belief.

One can assume there are craters on the dark side of the moon based on theory, and in fact since astronauts have visited the dark side of the moon. I often feed Schroedinger’s Cat.

One can say that the purpose of humanity is to exist, but that would be mundane compared to some higher purpose, assuming or believing that a higher purpose exists. Without a higher purpose, we are nothing more than animals. And it would appear we are endowed with more than simple animalistic capabilities.

Objective truths that are not believed may still have implications and consequences for us. For example, if I believe that something poisonous is benign and consume it without a second thought, I may still die.

Human beings do have faculties above those of the material order. We did not choose to have these faculties (including the faculty of being able to choose things), and this tells us that there is something which is able to give us these faculties, something which must be above the material order. We can know that eating poisonous things leads to bad consequences for us materially. We can also know that using our other faculties (like being able to choose) can lead to bad consequences. We have to learn, then, what things we should do and what things we shouldn’t do, subordinating our baser inclinations to the higher faculties of intellect and will.

 

[cialovesyou]

Kelly, all your responses are based on religious beliefs, therefore none of them qualify for what you are looking for.

“Our ultra-conservative, right-wing, staunchly religious American government believes that all ova are the beginning of life so this research has been stifled due to lack of funding."

The teacher has provided no insult here and has spoken the truth, so what is the problem? .

An ovum is life? Who is claiming that wrlang?

This is a complex area, but this Professor is either confused, or lying about the position of Pro-Lifers.Either way, the teacher did not speak the “truth”.

Now, you said…
“Back to your question. There is no scientific argument for or against ESCR, they are all emotional pleas. Ethics and right/wrong are based on religious beliefs. When early humans had enough time and bra(name removed by moderator)ower to ponder why things happen, they created beliefs to supplant the lack of actual knowledge.”

We dont have any argument with science at all. Science is the search for truth, and we welcome it! Technology however is a different matter.
For instance, we have now a great understanding of the atom, and I celebrate this. As we continue, this is likely to provide us with many beneficial technologies. But is the nuclear bomb a beneficial technology? Even the most enthusiastic for nuclear arms consider it a necessary evil. One that they hope to do away with one day.

“Ethics and right/wrong are based on religious beliefs.”
Really? Can an atheist not have ethics? Is right and wrong only the domain of people who believe in God?
Dont Christian humanists such as myself, and Secular humanists both want the best for humanity as a whole? Are not those things which are bad for humanity considered “wrong” by both camps?

Lots of nonsense surrounds this debate. Embryonic stem cells have now been successfully harvested without adverse effects on the embryo. So why arent the lobby groups touting this a way we can move forward in the debate?
Perhaps because the argument that humans “need to destroy embryoes to advance” was really what they were pushing for?

This doesnt have to be argument about God commands, demands, wants us to do. At the heart of it, this is an argument about humanistic ethics. About what is the best way forward for humanity. Lets argue it on those terms.

So, now we want to discuss the basics. What is the start of human life? Is it at some arbitary point in progress that we subjectively guess at? Or can we please look at the science? Can we appreciate that development into an adult human starts at the moment of cell division in the zygote? Can we agree that prior to fertilisation it cant develop into anything, but after fertilisation, if it develops, we end up with a baby, and nothing else?

Your side accuses us of stifling science, but you are not being honest.
You wrote…
“Even if the majority of facts don’t support your beliefs,
you can still keep your beliefs.”
Which facts are you talking about? What are you talking about? Seems to me this is empty rhetoric. I want to learn everything we can about all stages of life. If you accuse us of facts that dont support our position, then please bring them forward so we can review them. If they are indeed facts, we will accept them into our thinking.