 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sofyst wrote: |
We have Adam who is made a person when he was born, and we have Jeremiah who was a person prior to birth. And we do not have any statement as to which of these was the norm. Agreed so far?
|
I still have issues with the statement about Jeremiah, but for now let's ignore them and pretend that I am in agreement.
| sofyst wrote: |
If this is the case, and considering nothing else right now (don't bring in the arguments of the cons of taking away women's rights or the pro's of allowing abortion - lets just consider these basics right now). Considering only that the Bible gives us no concrete idea as to whether the thing within the womb is a person (it could or it could not), wouldn't you agree the safest thing, in each individual situation, is to assume that it is a person and therefore not kill it? |
You're asking me to ignore all of the arguments in favor of allowing abortion. If you ignore overpopulation issues and women's rights issues, etc., then it might be trivial to conclude that playing it safe would mean assuming that every fetus has a soul. But this is not how decision-making works; you have to weigh all of the pros and cons.
But even if we ignore overpopulation and women's rights, it's still not clear in my eyes.
Let's say we have a pregnant woman named X. She is pregnant with a baby that is going to be born and will be called A. She is a college student and is trying to decide whether or not she wants an abortion. There are two paths which she might walk down into the future.
Case 1: She aborts A, finishes her school, starts a career, etc., and then later has a baby named B which she is ready for. In this case, person A ceased to exist, and person B exists.
Case 2: She gives birth to A, and drops out of school. She doesn't get a good career, and doesn't make enough money to afford having another baby. Therefore baby B is never born. So in this case, person A exists, but person B never came into existence.
So even if you ignore women's rights and overpopulation, you still have this problem. Giving birth instead of having an abortion doesn't necessarily save any lives. It just changes who is born and when. With the abortion, person B got to exist. Without the abortion, person A got to exist. As far as God is concerned, these two scenarios are pretty much equal since all people are equal in the eyes of the lord. From society's point of view, however, it is better for Case 1 to happen, since then we have a professional and educated woman who can properly support her child.
_________________
"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: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | You're asking me to ignore all of the arguments in favor of allowing abortion. If you ignore overpopulation issues and women's rights issues, etc., then it might be trivial to conclude that playing it safe would mean assuming that every fetus has a soul. But this is not how decision-making works; you have to weigh all of the pros and cons.
But even if we ignore overpopulation and women's rights, it's still not clear in my eyes. |
I'm not asking you to ignore them, just not consider them right now. You are trying to consider all the pros and all the cons of legalizing abortion, when I am still trying to determine what 'abortion' is.
I am all for considering the pros and cons of abortion, and we will get to that.
First, I wanted to ask you whether you agree with this 'if a fetus is aborted there is the potential that a life is taken'. Do you agree with this?
I have understood you to say that according to your definition, it is impossible for a 'fetus' to be considered a 'person' based upon your definition of 'person' excluding fetuses (just as it excludes dogs and hamsters). But I am questioning your definition.
I am wondering whether the scientific community agrees unequivocally with you. What I mean is, is this you opinion (as mine is that a fetus is a person), or is it a scientific fact that 'a fetus is not a person'.
I don't want to here posit the argument that a fetus is indeed a person, even though I believe it is. I don't think it necessary to my argument to prove this (I don't even know if I can prove it). What I want to know is if there is ANY bit of doubt within the scientific community as to whether a fetus is a person. Do all Scientist agree that 'a fetus is not a person', in your understanding as they all agree that 'evolution did occur', or is it somewhat split without a decision being made in either direction. Some have the opinion that the fetus is a person, some have the opinion that it is not, but there has been no scientific study that unequivocally proves that a fetus is not a person.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where are you my friend?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
First, I wanted to ask you whether you agree with this 'if a fetus is aborted there is the potential that a life is taken'. Do you agree with this?
|
No. I would say that when a fetus is aborted, life is DEFINITELY destroyed. A fetus is made out of cells, those are living cells, and when you abort it, you kill ALL of those cells. It's just not a human being that you're destroying. It's an intermediate step in the developmental stage.
I would also agree that when you abort a fetus, you destroy a POTENTIAL human being. But the same holds true for birth control: by using condoms, you cause a human being that otherwise would have existed to not exist. By not mating with every woman you see walking down the street, you cause humans not to exist.
| sofyst wrote: |
I have understood you to say that according to your definition, it is impossible for a 'fetus' to be considered a 'person' based upon your definition of 'person' excluding fetuses (just as it excludes dogs and hamsters). But I am questioning your definition.
|
Sure; it is clear that we have different definitions. These things are purely subjective. You believe that life starts at conception, and I believe that life starts at birth.
| sofyst wrote: |
I am wondering whether the scientific community agrees unequivocally with you. What I mean is, is this you opinion (as mine is that a fetus is a person), or is it a scientific fact that 'a fetus is not a person'.
|
This is not a scientific question. You can't ask scientists to tell you whether or not it is a FACT that a fetus is or is not a person. If you tried, then the vast majority of them would probably tell you that it is not a person, but this would be no more than opinion on their part.
You can't scientifically PROVE that a fetus is a person or that it isn't. It entirely depends on your definition of person.
| sofyst wrote: |
I don't want to here posit the argument that a fetus is indeed a person, even though I believe it is. I don't think it necessary to my argument to prove this (I don't even know if I can prove it). What I want to know is if there is ANY bit of doubt within the scientific community as to whether a fetus is a person. Do all Scientist agree that 'a fetus is not a person', in your understanding as they all agree that 'evolution did occur', or is it somewhat split without a decision being made in either direction.
|
There can be no scientific proof in either direction, since it totally depends on your definition of person.
But if you did take a poll (which wouldn't be worth very much in terms of science), you would probably find that the majority of scientists support the right to choose.
| sofyst wrote: |
Some have the opinion that the fetus is a person, some have the opinion that it is not, but there has been no scientific study that unequivocally proves that a fetus is not a person. |
And there never will be, since it depends on the definition of 'person', and there are (at least) two different definitions. According to the definition that life begins at birth, a fetus is PROVABLY not a person. According to the definition that life begins at conception, a fetus PROVABLY is a person. It all just depends on your definition.
Science can't tell you which definition to choose.
_________________
"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 Feb 09, 2007 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm...
If the definition of 'person' is subjective, how then are we to make an objective law concerning it? I guess here you would say we cannot. We cannot make an objective law forbidding abortion, the killing of a person (according to one 'subjective' opinion), as there is no objective definition of person.
But I still do not think it true that there is no objective scientific opinion on what a person is. Perhaps there isn't, perhaps we will have to go to the legal arena.
Maybe I can ask this another way. If I was to ask a scientist what differentiates a 'person', me, from a 'non-person', my dog, what would he say?
I know he would claim that these are two different species being spoken of, but is the only reason it is wrong to kill you is because you are a human and fido is not?
Perhaps I am looking in the wrong area. For wouldn't there be disagreement among scientist as to whether it is permissible to cut the life-support of a comatose patient? One group would say its ok, as it is not a person; the other group would say it is wrong, as it is a person?
Perhaps we do need to go into the legal realm. Do you know where we would find a definition, within the legal realm, for what makes a person?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Maybe I can ask this another way. If I was to ask a scientist what differentiates a 'person', me, from a 'non-person', my dog, what would he say?
I know he would claim that these are two different species being spoken of, but is the only reason it is wrong to kill you is because you are a human and fido is not?
Perhaps I am looking in the wrong area. For wouldn't there be disagreement among scientist as to whether it is permissible to cut the life-support of a comatose patient? |
Yes, you are looking to science to give you answers which it is not designed to give. Science deals in facts. It does not deal in meanings or morals.
It is not a scientist's place to say what is right or what is wrong. Science isn't about right or wrong; it is about data.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Perhaps we do need to go into the legal realm. Do you know where we would find a definition, within the legal realm, for what makes a person? |
The law says that it is perfectly legal to have an abortion. It also says that murdering a human being is illegal. Therefore the law does not consider a fetus to be a human.
But I don't think that this is the right way to go, anyways... The law is totally subjective. There are all sorts of countries all over the world where abortion is illegal. Laws from different countries contradict each other all the time. In fact, sometimes laws from within the same country are contradictory!
Law definitely isn't synonymous with morality.
I would argue that the only way to get a definition is by going to the Bible, but that was the first thing we did; we mulled that over for a really long time, and I think we both eventually agreed that the Bible is ambiguous about abortion.
_________________
"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 Feb 09, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The law says that it is perfectly legal to have an abortion. It also says that murdering a human being is illegal. Therefore the law does not consider a fetus to be a human. |
But in certain situations, the law says that the killing of the fetus is murder. Therefore, it does not always say that a fetus is not a human. But I agree with you that it is pretty subjective as well...
Hmm...I'd agree with you likewise that the only way to find 'morality' is to look to the Scriptures. Wherein I agree with you further that it is quite ambiguous.
I think therefore, my stance, as of now, would be that given that our judicial system is not based upon the Scriptures, and given that our Country's morality is not derived from the Scriptures or Christian morality, that we, as Christians, cannot expect it to live by those standards.
I am of the opinion that we live in a pagan nation. The Christian can no more expect the pagans to behave as 'moral' Christians then we can a cat as a dog...
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I think therefore, my stance, as of now, would be that given that our judicial system is not based upon the Scriptures, and given that our Country's morality is not derived from the Scriptures or Christian morality, that we, as Christians, cannot expect it to live by those standards.
|
Why would you say this? I assert that virtually all of the laws in Western civilization are based on the Bible and that Christian morality completely permeates our way of thinking. This is especially true in America; it is essentially a Christian nation, and its laws are strongly based on the Bible. Remember, allowing abortions does not clearly contradict the Bible, so there isn't a problem there.
| sofyst wrote: |
I am of the opinion that we live in a pagan nation. The Christian can no more expect the pagans to behave as 'moral' Christians then we can a cat as a dog... |
No, America is definitely not a pagan nation; it is an almost completely Christian nation. Just look at the demographics!
About 80% of Americans are Christians!
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_America
_________________
"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: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say that it was founded on Christian principles, but I believe it is moving away from those principles. And I am not so quick to rejoice in the fact that many Americans 'claim' to be Christian. I recognize the truth that many a stupid and biblically-illiterate men have made it too easy to become Christian and have opened the door to a pagan nation believing themselves to be Christian.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | I would say that it was founded on Christian principles, but I believe it is moving away from those principles. And I am not so quick to rejoice in the fact that many Americans 'claim' to be Christian. I recognize the truth that many a stupid and biblically-illiterate men have made it too easy to become Christian and have opened the door to a pagan nation believing themselves to be Christian. |
I happen to agree that America isn't actually a Christian nation, but I felt that I had to give the 'stats'.
In my opinion, the primary god being worshipped in America is Mammon, regardless of whether or not the people doing the worshiping know it.
_________________
"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: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
You mean money?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | You mean money? |
There's more to it than that. Mammon is the god of material wealth and greed.
I argue that Western civilization has become extremely materialistic. Perhaps nowhere is that more apparent than in America. The entire economy is based on overconsumption. The advertising is focused on how to sell things that people don't really need.
All the junk that's accumulated in your attic and garage... Those are your sacrifices to Mammon.
The nice thing about Mammonism is that it is compatible with pretty much all religions (except for maybe Buddhism, which explicitly rejects it). It is even compatible with atheism.
Most people who worship him don't even know that they're doing it.
Wikipedia has a nice little article on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
_________________
"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: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't necessarily think consumerism is, but would agree with you that materialism is Satan  . I agree likewise that America is far too materialistic.
| Quote: | | The nice thing about Mammonism is that it is compatible with pretty much all religions (except for maybe Buddhism, which explicitly rejects it). It is even compatible with atheism. |
Be careful my friend. From the way you stated this, one could interpret you as placing atheism within the religion category.
 
_________________
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 
