 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sofyst wrote: |
So when God said 'I formed YOU in the womb', it is assumptive of me to think that it was Jeremiah in the womb being formed?
|
It depends on what you mean. If you are claiming that Jeremiah's body was being formed in the womb, then I think that everyone agrees with you, and anyone who doesn't must have some mental problems.
On the other hand, if you are saying that Jeremiah's SOUL was being formed in the womb (and as I understand things, this is what you are saying), then you might be right and you might be wrong, but there is insufficient scriptural support for you to be convinced that you're right.
| sofyst wrote: |
To be blunt, so? Why should men have to pay for something they don't want?
|
I agree with you. I think that if the father is told as soon as the mother becomes pregnant and he decides that he doesn't want anything to do with the pregnancy or baby, then he should be able to sign a legal document absolving himself of all rights and responsibilities of parenthood.
Of course, he shouldn't be able to say yes at first and then change his mind two weeks before delivery, so there are issues to be worked out.
| sofyst wrote: |
But don't you see that my argument needn't be based upon Scripture? We are simply considering when a person becomes a person. You say at birth, I say sometime before. We don't know. Therefore, let us assume it happens at the earliest time possible. I don't need to resort to the authority of God to make that argument, an atheist could make the very same argument.
|
But if your argument is not based on scripture, then it's just your opinion. Your opinion is worth no more than that of the person who disagrees with you, so there is no reason why we should consider you to be right and the other person to be wrong. Nobody is forcing anyone to have any abortions here. If you and your wife don't want to have one, then don't have one. But don't force your views onto others; that's completely un-American.
Besides, there are GOOD reasons for allowing abortions. Women's rights and human overpopulation are just some of them.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | There used to be a drug called silphium, contemporary with the last pennings of the bible, that was likely an abortifacient, and a known herbal contraceptive. It was apparently pretty popular. |
You're welcome  |
You know, you probably are the reason I know that... I love these boards - I learn new stuff all the time (and I'm not afraid to incorporate it in my thoughts later)! 
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | It depends on what you mean. If you are claiming that Jeremiah's body was being formed in the womb, then I think that everyone agrees with you, and anyone who doesn't must have some mental problems.
On the other hand, if you are saying that Jeremiah's SOUL was being formed in the womb (and as I understand things, this is what you are saying), then you might be right and you might be wrong, but there is insufficient scriptural support for you to be convinced that you're right. |
We are making progress. I am not saying it is either his soul or his body. I am saying it is 'Jeremiah'.
I know that Jeremiah's body was being formed in the womb, but just as you do not call the corpse of Jeremiah by the name of Jeremiah, neither would you call the body of Jeremiah alone by that name. Therefore we know it is not ONLY Jeremiah's body being formed in the womb.
And I am not claiming that it was Jeremiah's soul being formed either.
I am saying that it was 'Jeremiah' in the womb, just as Scripture plainly says ('Jeremiah, you were being formed in the womb').
What exactly it is that is combined with the body to make it 'Jeremiah', I do not know.
| Quote: | I agree with you. I think that if the father is told as soon as the mother becomes pregnant and he decides that he doesn't want anything to do with the pregnancy or baby, then he should be able to sign a legal document absolving himself of all rights and responsibilities of parenthood.
Of course, he shouldn't be able to say yes at first and then change his mind two weeks before delivery, so there are issues to be worked out. |
Is there such a thing? I didn't think there was. I thought that if a woman wanted to go through with the pregnancy, and yet the man did not, the man had no choice in the matter, he had to be responsible for the baby. I may be mistaken though.
| Quote: | But if your argument is not based on scripture, then it's just your opinion. Your opinion is worth no more than that of the person who disagrees with you, so there is no reason why we should consider you to be right and the other person to be wrong. Nobody is forcing anyone to have any abortions here. If you and your wife don't want to have one, then don't have one. But don't force your views onto others; that's completely un-American.
Besides, there are GOOD reasons for allowing abortions. Women's rights and human overpopulation are just some of them. |
But there are GOOD reasons not to have abortions as well. The main one being that you don't know if it is a person or not.
P, I don't think you have claimed that you know beyond doubt that the thing within the womb is a person or not. I think you have the opinion it is not, just as I have the opinion it is.
Would I then ask if you recognize that there is the chance that when you destroy that thing you are destroying a person? Do you recognize this or do you deny that such a chance exists? Do you think that when it is destroyed nothing is destroyed save a personless mound of flesh and organs?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
We are making progress. I am not saying it is either his soul or his body. I am saying it is 'Jeremiah'.
I know that Jeremiah's body was being formed in the womb, but just as you do not call the corpse of Jeremiah by the name of Jeremiah, neither would you call the body of Jeremiah alone by that name.
|
When someone has died, it is customary to pay one's last respects, and often this is done with an open casket. When people come to view the body, they don't say, "Where's the corpse?" They say, "Where is Fred?". People DO refer to corpses by name.
| sofyst wrote: |
But there are GOOD reasons not to have abortions as well. The main one being that you don't know if it is a person or not.
P, I don't think you have claimed that you know beyond doubt that the thing within the womb is a person or not. I think you have the opinion it is not, just as I have the opinion it is.
Would I then ask if you recognize that there is the chance that when you destroy that thing you are destroying a person? Do you recognize this or do you deny that such a chance exists? Do you think that when it is destroyed nothing is destroyed save a personless mound of flesh and organs? |
There is no objective definition concerning what is and what is not a person. According to my definition of person, a fetus is not a person, so the answer to your question is no, there is zero chance that a fetus is a person, at least by my definition.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | There is no objective definition concerning what is and what is not a person. According to my definition of person, a fetus is not a person, so the answer to your question is no, there is zero chance that a fetus is a person, at least by my definition. |
Do you know beyond doubt that your definition is right? If your definition happens to be wrong, a person has been murdered. If my definition happens to be wrong, no one dies.
| Quote: | | When someone has died, it is customary to pay one's last respects, and often this is done with an open casket. When people come to view the body, they don't say, "Where's the corpse?" They say, "Where is Fred?". People DO refer to corpses by name. |
People also say the 'sun is rising' when in reality it isn't moving at all. People say things that aren't correct all the time. The question is is that corpse really 'Fred', or are they falsely referring to it as 'Fred'?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Do you know beyond doubt that your definition is right? If your definition happens to be wrong, a person has been murdered. If my definition happens to be wrong, no one dies.
|
There is no such thing as right and wrong definitions about subjective things like this. Personhood is a man-made concept. We can define it however we want. There is no right or wrong.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | When someone has died, it is customary to pay one's last respects, and often this is done with an open casket. When people come to view the body, they don't say, "Where's the corpse?" They say, "Where is Fred?". People DO refer to corpses by name. |
People also say the 'sun is rising' when in reality it isn't moving at all. People say things that aren't correct all the time. The question is is that corpse really 'Fred', or are they falsely referring to it as 'Fred'? |
People also falsely refer to fetuses by name. It all depends on your definition of personhood.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder then your opinion on the killing of slaves. Would you say those people were justified for killing their slaves as they did not consider their slaves to be 'persons', but property?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | I wonder then your opinion on the killing of slaves. Would you say those people were justified for killing their slaves as they did not consider their slaves to be 'persons', but property? |
Of course they were not justified! For one, I reject their definition of person and their categorization of ANY human as a slave!
You can't compare a fully grown human to a zygote!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But you said:
| Quote: | | People also falsely refer to fetuses by name. It all depends on your definition of personhood. |
Why could one not argue that people also falsely refer to slaves by name?
It all depends on your defintion of personhood.
Who are you to say they were wrong? You have your opinion on what a person is (not a fetus), they have their's (not a slave). You reject their defintion of 'person', but maybe they reject your's. I mean, I reject your's and that doesn't mean anything...
I just don't understand who you are to say that they must accept your definition of person and you therefore want to take away their right to have a slave.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dramatic_n_comedic_lynn wrote: |
And if you think a guy has to pay for child support if the woman gives up the child for adoption, do you think she should too since she did the very same thing?
. |
depends...also...
i have been to europe several times...i didn't see any uncircumsized penis's... .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I just don't understand who you are to say that they must accept your definition of person and you therefore want to take away their right to have a slave. |
I'm not saying that ANYONE should accept my definition of person. I am perfectly happy allowing everyone to come up with their own definition. If a woman wants to define a fetus as being a person, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm not going to force her to have an abortion.
And similarly, if a different woman wants to define a fetus as not being a person, then that should be perfectly fine with you.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dramatic_n_comedic_lynn
Big Goldfish
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 73
Location: Sweden (though I'm from Maryland)
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| theseldomscene wrote: | | i have been to europe several times...i didn't see any uncircumsized penis's... .... |
Cool..what parts in Europe?
I've visited Sweden four times before I finally moved there this past June. I've been to Denmark, Germany, Poland, Slovakia (probably didn't spell that right), Hungary, and Romania.
Now, in Sweden at least, I have seen two uncircumsized penises. My SO's and my SO's best friend's.
Okay, I'm going to admit I don't know how circumcision is seen in Europe as a whole. My SO has lived in Europe all his life, and he's never met anyone that was for circumcision. Of course, I will be fair in saying that it doesn't mean there isn't anyone in Europe that doesn't support it. I'm sure there are like Italians (since Italy is pre-dominantly Catholic), Irishmen(Ireland, another predominantly Catholic country), and maybe Poles (Poland, another predominantly Catholic country) that support it.
However, I am going to vouche for Sweden at least since I live there now and my SO is a citizen. Swedes, as I told P12, think circumcision is child abuse and mutalation. If I got what he said right, you could get fined if you circumsize your child in Sweden.
After thinking about it, it was wrong for me to generalize (especially since I'm an individualist and I'm suppose to base things individually) about Europeans in general not being cirumcized and being against it. That was a debate flaw and I didn't realize I made it till later on yesterday.
I will say that there are Europeans that support circumcision and are circumsized just as much as everyone else in the world. However, I know for sure Sweden is against it and you don't find a Swede to be circumsized...unless they immigranted to Sweden.
_________________
When do we stop learning? Maybe never |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | sofyst wrote: |
I just don't understand who you are to say that they must accept your definition of person and you therefore want to take away their right to have a slave. |
I'm not saying that ANYONE should accept my definition of person. I am perfectly happy allowing everyone to come up with their own definition. If a woman wants to define a fetus as being a person, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm not going to force her to have an abortion.
And similarly, if a different woman wants to define a fetus as not being a person, then that should be perfectly fine with you. |
Would all this be perfectly fine with you?
What I don't understand is that you say I should be perfectly fine with different definitions of 'person' that do not agree with my own. But you do not seem to abide by this same rule. You did not seem fine with the slave-owners who defined 'person' differently than you did. You say they were not justified in this action.
And I am not comparing a full grown human to a zygote. I am comparing a fetus within the womb which develops all the way into the birth. You say that a 'person' is not a 'person' until the birth, therefore a week before the 'before' that thing within the womb would not be a 'person'. I am comparing that thing, which you do not consider a 'person' to the slave.
You call that thing not a person, I call it a person. Some people called slaves not a person, you call them persons. Who are we to tell each other who they can or cannot call 'persons'?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7553
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
You call that thing not a person, I call it a person. Some people called slaves not a person, you call them persons. Who are we to tell each other who they can or cannot call 'persons'? |
The benefits of slavery are clearly outweighed by the detractions. With abortion, most civilized countries agree that the benefits of abortion outweigh the detractions. People can think of others as slaves if they want. I have no problem with that. If they ACT on that definition and treat others as slaves, then that constitutes a human rights abuse. You cannot say the analogous thing to outlaw abortion. Taking away a woman's right to abortion is a human rights abuse.
There is a general consensus among civilized nations what constitutes proper human civil rights. Slavery has been abolished in all civilized countries. The only countries in which slavery is still rampant are ones in which the rule of law is weak.
If you look at abortion and then ask yourself where it is allowed and where it is not allowed, then you will see that all civilized countries on the planet allow it, and the only places where it is not allowed are evil uncivilized countries in which the rule of law is weak and civil rights abuses are the norm.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
P, I think that most of our disagreement on this issue boils down to the idea that you would be willing to forbid a human's rights if it betters the whole of society (as in the case of a pedophile), but would not dream of forbiding a human's rights if it did not better the whole of society (in the case of a woman's right to abortion).
Wherease, I think the only reason a human's rights should be 'violated' or forbidden is if the exercise of such a right endangers or hurts another human being, or another person. We do not allow slave-owners the right to slaves, as it hurts the persons that are slaves. We do not allow pedophiles the rights to commit pedophilia, as it hurts the child. We do not allow women the right to abortion, as it hurts the child (bare with me here, I know you don't think of them as persons).
Do you not see this as our major point of disagreement in our discussion on this issue. I tend to think the good of the society can never justify the individual's displeasure, whereas you seem to think the good of society is the ideal.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
