Abortion is murder

Zombrex

Snowball wrote:

I agree. I don’t think u have the right to belittle someone’s beliefs like that. Uncalled for.

The Corinthian wrote:

He turned around and rubbished other people's belief in reason and humanism then got upset when they retorted in kind. As such I really have no sympathy for him or the offence he now feels.

Agreed TC. AndyWarhol has on a number of post implied that I and others have no morals or moral code because we do not follow his. Now, personally I don't care. But as TC pointed out, if he can't walk the walk, he shouldn't talk the talk. He can't expect to critisies other peoples morals and beliefs without getting critisim of his. The point TC is making (not that I 100% agree) is that a moral belief based not on understanding or reasoning but on blind faith is an easy out from actually having to decide moral questions yourself. You simply do what other people tell u to do.

AndyWarhol has stated a few times that he doesn't actually know, or can't fully explain, why something like killing is wrong. Thats fine, but it is hard for him to discuss the topic then, as it boils down to him simply saying "no you are wrong, my god says so".

Snowball

The Corinthian wrote:

He turned around and rubbished other people's belief in reason and humanism then got upset when they retorted in kind. As such I really have no sympathy for him or the offence he now feels.

Point taken and I accept it. You are right just it was a bit ...

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course I know, and that is also pretty much irrelevant to what I wrote. What you seem to have neglected to notice is that there's very little in morality which is truly that personal. If it were, why do people in one Society all seem to magically have broadly similar moral values and people from another Society have another set of values - yet still magically similar to others within their Society?

I get that and it is the scariest thing about religions. They blindly follow what the church (or someone else) says is right. They do not question what others tell them and you end up with masses of ppl following someone else's values like sheep.

AndyWarhol

The Atheist wrote:

Thank you for that unfettered revelation of your piousness.

No god = no morals. I think I'll go drown a puppy.

Just because I don't know the answer to the challenge to state exactly what is right and what is wrong, does not diminish my faith in God. I'm no guru of faith (I am but a mere student of engineering) and I'm sure if I went up to my college Chaplain, he'd be able to answer such a question both from a logical and theological perspective.

Now are there any humanists in here that can actually answer the above challenge?

Without faith, life has no meaning. No right/wrong, justice/injustice, ethics, nothing, just a bunch of atoms bouncing around in a dark universe.

I'm glad you conclude that "No god = no morals. I think I'll go drown a puppy". Replace puppy with baby for a second, does this make abortion ok?

This trail of deduction is dangerous and similar to the thinking behind Hitler's regime where Jews were some how dehumanised as inferior beings. The blonde haired, muscular young man was evolution in its most advanced form and everybody else were not worthy of living. Logically you could argue this and it seems so plausible.

But logic is itself but a science. And whilst science has answered a great number of questions, there are an infinite number of questions that science cannot answer and an infinite number of questions again that we haven't even thought up. To reduce life to some kind of logical thought experiment is say there is actually no such thing as right and wrong, then anarchy prevails (as in my previous postings).

p.s. Please deal with my argument as a whole, I'm getting tired of (indeed can't follow) nit-picky arguments, especially those that are selectively quoting me from several postings that I made over several days.

The Corinthian

AndyWarhol wrote:

Just because I don't know the answer to the challenge to state exactly what is right and what is wrong, does not diminish my faith in God.

Good for you.

I'm no guru of faith (I am but a mere student of engineering) and I'm sure if I went up to my college Chaplain, he'd be able to answer such a question both from a logical and theological perspective.

I wouldn't be too certain of that.

Now are there any humanists in here that can actually answer the above challenge?

That is the purpose of this discussion, so that we may, through rational debate, seek to define good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Will we succeed? Probably not, but we will hopefully gain new insights.

Without faith, life has no meaning. No right/wrong, justice/injustice, ethics, nothing, just a bunch of atoms bouncing around in a dark universe.

This is an assertion - at best an unsubstantiated opinion and at worst a cliché.

I'm glad you conclude that "No god = no morals. I think I'll go drown a puppy". Replace puppy with baby for a second, does this make abortion ok?

Good grief man, he was being sarcastic - I would have thought that obvious.

This trail of deduction is dangerous and similar to the thinking behind Hitler's regime where Jews were some how dehumanised as inferior beings. The blonde haired, muscular young man was evolution in its most advanced form and everybody else were not worthy of living. Logically you could argue this and it seems so plausible.

Logic's great flaw is it's axiomatic - and founded upon initial assumptions. No matter how perfect your reasoning may be, if these are flawed, then so shall your conclusions be. And in this regard religion is identical to science, deism, atheism or any other belief system in-between. The only difference being that religion calls these assumptions faith, and they tend to be be a bit more ambitious than the scientific variety.

As such religion has perpetuated it's own fair share of dehumanisations; from jihads to inquisitions. And, based upon its axioms, logically and rationally justified - "kill them all, God will know his own", springs to mind.

But logic is itself but a science. And whilst science has answered a great number of questions, there are an infinite number of questions that science cannot answer and an infinite number of questions again that we haven't even thought up. To reduce life to some kind of logical thought experiment is say there is actually no such thing as right and wrong, then anarchy prevails (as in my previous postings).

I don't want to seem rude, but do you actually know what anarchy means? It denotes lack of order not a lack of good or evil. What you may dread is simply that the laws that you had hoped ruled the universe are not the ones that actually do so, not that there are no laws in the first place.

p.s. Please deal with my argument as a whole, I'm getting tired of (indeed can't follow) nit-picky arguments, especially those that are selectively quoting me from several postings that I made over several days.

Please, get off the cross - someone needs the wood.

I honestly don't feel that the rebuttals against you have been nit-picky, and would feel compelled to conclude that if you're already finding them pedantic so early in discussions that they can't be very solid to begin with.

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

Just because I don't know the answer to the challenge to state exactly what is right and what is wrong, does not diminish my faith in God.

Did anyone say it should?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Without faith, life has no meaning.

Says who? I have a quite fullfilling and meaingful life thank you very much, completely devoid of a belief or faith in a god or gods.

AndyWarhol wrote:

No right/wrong, justice/injustice, ethics, nothing, just a bunch of atoms bouncing around in a dark universe.

Firstly, the universe is not "dark" (or cold for that matter). Secondly everything is just bunches of atoms bouncing around (even if there is a God). Thirldy, in no way does that mean people cannot believe/follow/argue ideas of justice, ethics or moral ideas of right or wrong.

In fact, most of the "teachings" of the modern christian church come not from God or the religion itself but originally from the classical philosophical ideas of the Greeks and Romans. Is it necessary to beleive in Zeus to believe in the ideas of rule of law, or democracy?

AndyWarhol wrote:

p.s. Please deal with my argument as a whole, I'm getting tired of (indeed can't follow) nit-picky arguments, especially those that are selectively quoting me from several postings that I made over several days.

I can't find an "argument" whole or otherwise, apart from "if you don't believe in God you have no morals", which is nonsense and hardly worth arguing.

In fact I would argue that if all you do is blindly follow the teachings or moral system of someone else, be they a preist or book, you have no morals, only laws that you follow. Morals implies you understand and believe certain behaviour and beliefs are correct, that it is in some way a personal choice as a way to behave or believe. One follows laws even if you don't understand why or the reasoning behind the law, because otherwise you will be punished.

But that is getting off topic.

Vangelis

Andy, my pal , I have followed this thread and it seems to lead nowhere.
I suppose you have the same problem now with getting through to people as once before. If someone in here seems cruel and inconsiderate to you, leave them alone. They are inconvinceable anyway.

I reckon these kinds of threads end up quite swollen and charged. By all means, the discussion seems to continue because people like stepping over eachother and criticising and it's not pleasant. I am a Christian myself and I wholeheartedly and firmly BELIEVE that abortion is wrong. But who am I to judge? Maybe my God will have mercy on those who feel they must kill their baby. All I know is that my God is merciful and forgiving. We are humans, we make mistakes, and we are ignorant, and God knows this.

I see that God is not welcome in this discussion, but so is nobody else it seems.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

They are inconconvinceable anyway.

Is that what you tell yourself when you fail to convince people that you're right?

It must be very comforting.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

I suppose you have the same problem now with getting through to people as once before. If someone in here seems cruel and inconsiderate to you, leave them alone. They are inconconvinceable anyway.

The problem is he isn't trying to get through to anyone. As far as I can tell he (and other Christian anti-abortionist) are just saying "I don't really understand why, but God is saying this is wrong, so don't do it" Now that is fine and dandy but I (and others on this discussion) don't actually believe in "God" any more than I am sure yourself and AndyWarhol believe in the Hindu god of rats. So telling me that God doesn't want me to do something is never going to get through.

Others on this discussion have been putting forward proper reasoning and ethical arguments for and against abortion. That is something AndyWarhol seems to have very little time for, he dismisses of hand arguments for abortion without taking time to understand them.

Put simply it is Andy himself who seems unwilling to enter into discussion, not the people on this board who replied to the post he started.

Vangelis wrote:

I see that God is not welcome in this discussion, but so is nobody else it seems.

God is perfectly welcome, but the argument "Its wrong because God says so" is not going to be taken very seriously.

Snowball

Vangelis wrote:

Andy, my pal , I have followed this thread and it seems to lead nowhere.
I suppose you have the same problem now with getting through to people as once before. If someone in here seems cruel and inconsiderate to you, leave them alone. They are inconconvinceable anyway.

I reckon these kinds of threads end up quite swollen and charged. By all means, the discussion seems to continue because people like stepping over eachother and criticising and it's not pleasant.

I think Wicknight hit the nail on the head.
This is a discussion is I don’t think that ppl are just here to step over other ppl's opinions or beliefs, just that it gets a little heated in here some times. But that’s the point of a debate. If everyone agreed then there would nothing to talk about.

Vangelis wrote:

I am a Christian myself and I wholeheartedly and firmly BELIEVE that abortion is wrong. But who am I to judge? Maybe my God will have mercy on those who feel they must kill their baby. All I know is that my God is merciful and forgiving. We are humans, we make mistakes, and we are ignorant, and God knows this.

Then from that (although I assume it’s not the case) I would deduct that you would vote for choice?
If, although you know its wrong, you think that its up to God to make the judgments then ppl should be entitled to make their own choices and their own mistakes because it will be them who has to meet their maker. (not trying to stir up anything and no offecnce intended from that btw)

Vangelis wrote:

I see that God is not welcome in this discussion, but so is nobody else it seems.

Under no circumstances do I believe that is true.

Personally I think you could add a valuable insight and opinion and I would like it of you would post more often instead of just reading. If you do not voice your opinion then you, in effect, don't really have one. I'd like to hear yours.

nesf

AndyWarhol wrote:

p.s. Please deal with my argument as a whole, I'm getting tired of (indeed can't follow) nit-picky arguments, especially those that are selectively quoting me from several postings that I made over several days.

Welcome to debating. You seem to be confusing nit picking and people responding to you. Your arguments are not whole objects but collections of points. People can and will deal with these points individually.

As I've said earlier, it is fine for you to say that your beliefs are based on faith. It is not ok for you present that and expect us to follow. Not everyone here has faith and/or do not wish to base their moral/ethical decisions on it.

If this was just a statement of your personal opinion, I wouldn't question or refute you. I can respect that you feel this way. But the discussion you started was over this country's laws regarding abortion. That is a very different thing.

You cannot dismiss another person's arguments by saying they have no divine moral code and/or no faith. Personally, I find that extremely insulting. How can you expect people to listen to you if you do this? Religious intolerance is not going to win any debates or arguments.

AndyWarhol

You know I have a firm stance on the issue of abortion and my moral guidance comes from God through the teachings of the church. I realise you humanists seek logical answers to all things fundamental, and fundamentally the reason why abortion, murder, rape, stealing is wrong boils down to faith in the holy and apostolic Church. The truth of faith is something that seizes us, not something of our own discovery (still less, our invention).

So can I ask what your moral stance is on abortion? If you have no moral framework for you life, how do you prevent yourself from going out killing somebody? (assuming you have no god). And if you have some other sort of god or moral code by which you live your life (and I'd like to know exactly why[/] this belief system deems certain aspects of life wrong), how do you differentiate between the murder of a child/adolescent, and the murder of a child in the womb?

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

I realise you humanists seek logical answers to all things fundamental, and fundamentally the reason why abortion, murder, rape, stealing is wrong boils down to faith in the holy and apostolic Church.

I assume you mean "for you the reason why..."

So basically you are saying you beleive it is wrong because the Catholic church tell you it is wrong, and you believe the church is the respresentation of God and therefore infaliable (u never did tackle the issue of the "quickening though. anyway...)

I would ask though do you understand why the church believes it is wrong? Eventually somewhere there has to be a reason it is wrong, even if that reason is known only to God.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The truth of faith is something that seizes us, not something of our own discovery (still less, our invention).

As I have said before, not if you are an athesist Then faith and religion are seen as entirely an invention of the human imagination.

AndyWarhol wrote:

If you have no moral framework for you life, how do you prevent yourself from going out killing somebody? (assuming you have no god).

Are you telling me the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you are afraid of upsetting God or of his punishment? You don't actually feel it is wrong yourself, but you have been told by the church it is wrong therefore you shouldn't do it? :rolleyes:

I am pretty sure you know killing someone is wrong yourself, and you would have come to that conclusion if you have never set foot in a church.

It is perfectly possible to have a strong moral code (much stronger than simply "don't kill people") and not believe in any super-natural being. In fact, atheists believe/realise (depending on your point of view) that all morals and codes come from humanity, because even religion is an invention of humanity.

Morality is a trait of humanity, and does not need or require a god to produce it. Human beings are prefectly capable of coming up with moral codes on their own. We have been doing it for thousands of years. As I have already said most of modern day codes of law and morality have histories long before Jesus was nailed to a plank of wood. If you believe the idea of morality began with the Christian church you need a history lesson.

AndyWarhol wrote:

how do you differentiate between the murder of a child/adolescent, and the murder of a child in the womb?

Personally the question for me is if the feotus has developed a brain yet. I believe that consciousness is what defines a "human being", and it is the destruction of that consciousness through death that is the "crime" in killing somone. If a feotus has never had a chance to develop consciousness, never had anything close to a nerveous system or brain, then it has not yet existed as a human entity. It is no more an individual "human being" than your liver or heart.

Now I admit still struggle myself with the details of this idea, such as when does consciousness develop, what exactly is consciousness etc I am in no way convinced that it is a totally correct theory, and in may ways I am still on the fence with reguard to abortion. I am perfectly happy to debate this with anyone with a serious contribution to add.

AndyWarhol

Wicknight wrote:

Personally the question for me is if the feotus has developed a brain yet. I believe that consciousness is what defines a "human being", and it is the destruction of that consciousness through death that is the "crime" in killing somone. If a feotus has never had a chance to develop consciousness, never had anything close to a nerveous system or brain, then it has not yet existed as a human entity. It is no more an individual "human being" than your liver or heart.

Now I admit still struggle myself with the details of this idea, such as when does consciousness develop, what exactly is consciousness etc I am in no way convinced that it is a totally correct theory, and in may ways I am still on the fence with reguard to abortion. I am perfectly happy to debate this with anyone with a serious contribution to add.

Ok, so you believe that as soon as consciousness enters into the human, then it is wrong to kill. For me, as a Catholic, what makes humans different to all other beings is that they have souls. Ensoulment occurs from the moment of conception when something extraordinary, and out of this world occurs.

Abortion is the killing of a soul (conscience in your case). You say you are sitting on the fence on this issue and I assume that you are horrified by the killing of an innocent conscience? What is your cut-off point that determines what is a conscience? Would it not be better to err on the side of caution and outlaw abortion for fear of killing a conscience?

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

For me, as a Catholic, what makes humans different to all other beings is that they have souls. Ensoulment occurs from the moment of conception when something extraordinary, and out of this world occurs.

Now you see that is a perfectly valid point .. wasn't too hard

I can't really argue for or against when the soul enters the body cause I don't actually believe in "the soul". To me, as an atheist, the concept of a "soul" is just a human idea used to describe and explain things we don't yet understand, ie self-awareness, consciousness, and to tackle problems of the existence of an after-life.

So while I respect that you have given a fully formed theory of why abortion is wrong (abortion is wrong because you are killing a life that possesses a soul, which is a sin), we are both coming from different starting places. And arguing over the validity of the existance of God, or the teachings of the church, are beyond this thread.

AndyWarhol wrote:

What is your cut-off point that determines what is a conscience? Would it not be better to err on the side of caution and outlaw abortion for fear of killing a conscience?

It is better to err on the side of caution, but at the same time it is not necessary to go nuts with caution. A collections of cells with no nervious system, no spinal cord or brain is not conscious, any more than your liver is conscious. So, in my opinion at the moment, early term abortions are acceptable (open to debate on the topic). The later into the development of the feotus the more blurred the line gets, as the feotus first develops nerves, then a spine, then a brain.

The Corinthian

AndyWarhol wrote:

You know I have a firm stance on the issue of abortion and my moral guidance comes from God through the teachings of the church. I realise you humanists seek logical answers to all things fundamental, and fundamentally the reason why abortion, murder, rape, stealing is wrong boils down to faith in the holy and apostolic Church. The truth of faith is something that seizes us, not something of our own discovery (still less, our invention).

Why are you bothering to discus this here? Seriously; if you are so opposed to even the concept of deduction you essentially are contributing nothing at all to the discussion.

Even if you were here to convert, you would be counterproductive - those open to being swayed one way or another in this debate would be unlikely to be seized by your faith, but would more likely react against your dogma. The pro-Choice campaign couldn't hope for a better poster boy than you.

So I really can't see why you're bothering to post if you have nothing constructive to say.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

So while I respect that you have given a fully formed theory of why abortion is wrong (abortion is wrong because you are killing a life that possesses a soul, which is a sin), we are both coming from different starting places. And arguing over the validity of the existance of God, or the teachings of the church, are beyond this thread.

Christians and other people with other religions might as well resign from this debate then.

It is better to err on the side of caution, but at the same time it is not necessary to go nuts with caution. A collections of cells with no nervious system, no spinal cord or brain is not conscious, any more than your liver is conscious. So, in my opinion at the moment, early term abortions are acceptable (open to debate on the topic). The later into the development of the feotus the more blurred the line gets, as the feotus first develops nerves, then a spine, then a brain.

Know what you speak of before you speak it. It has been detected by embryo-researchers that the embryo can react to movement and sound from a very early stage for instance. That makes it capable of recognising the voice of the mother and her behaviour. An embryo can get restless if the mother is restless and so on. Embryos also recognise e.g music pieces that are played repeatedlly and that they move according to the rhythm and bass in the music. Soothing music has a soothing effect and fast music makes the embryo move quick, kick etc. So evidently, embryos at a certain stage in their development at least, aren't incapable of perceiving the world around them. I said now what I know. An embryologist could say more.

Some would argue that our perception is part of our conscience, or soul.

Closing Doors

Wicknight wrote:

Personally the question for me is if the feotus has developed a brain yet. I believe that consciousness is what defines a "human being", and it is the destruction of that consciousness through death that is the "crime" in killing somone. If a feotus has never had a chance to develop consciousness, never had anything close to a nerveous system or brain, then it has not yet existed as a human entity. It is no more an individual "human being" than your liver or heart.

So it would be ok to kill someone if they were in a coma after a car crash or something becuase they're unconcious? What qualifies as conciousness? Is it ok to kill someone in their sleep?

Personally I've always thought that the reason killing someone is morally wrong, is not because you cause them pain etc. but that you are denying them the oppurtunity to live out the rest of their lives as they see fit. In the case of abortion, you're denying a foetus the chance to live the rest of its life. And I think everybody agrees the foetus is actually alive but disagree whether the life is as valuable as a "full" human's life.

Also I don't know who posted the example of a preganancy getting the way of the womans career, but I have to say I was absolutely disgusted. I posted before this (but I think it got deleted when the servers changed) but I'll say it again: Unplanned pregnancy != Crisis pregnancy. She chose to have sex, she can f*ckin well live with the consequences. If she doesn't want to raise it because it affects her career prospects then give it up for adoption, but for (was about to say "the love of God" but I'm guessing that wouldn't go down that well ) fecks sake don't kill it because it's an inconvenience :mad: I actually know of someone that did their Leaving Cert whilst 5/6 months pregnant and did well, got her place in college etc. just an example that it can be done...

Oh and a polite request to try and cut down on bringing religion in to the debate. The only thing worse than reading somebody's "ye godless feckers" rantings is reading the knee-jerk atheist "must automatically disagree with what he just said" reply. Not directed at anyone in particular, I just don't think it's conducive to a decent discussion

Dades

Vangelis wrote:

Christians and other people with other religions might as well resign from this debate then.

With all due respect, if the one reason you are anti-abortion is because your faith dictates it, then yes. You've made that clear, and for you it's relevant, thanks for coming. If on the other hand you have some non-religious opinions, such as you have just posted, then by all means the debate is still open.

Closing Doors wrote:

So it would be ok to kill someone if they were in a coma after a car crash or something becuase they're unconcious? What qualifies as conciousness? Is it ok to kill someone in their sleep?

One word - unconstructive. And you know it.

Closing Doors

The Atheist wrote:

One word - unconstructive. And you know it.

A little OTT perhaps but I do believe I have a valid underlying point.

AndyWarhol

The Corinthian wrote:

Why are you bothering to discus this here? Seriously; if you are so opposed to even the concept of deduction you essentially are contributing nothing at all to the discussion.

Even if you were here to convert, you would be counterproductive - those open to being swayed one way or another in this debate would be unlikely to be seized by your faith, but would more likely react against your dogma. The pro-Choice campaign couldn't hope for a better poster boy than you.

So I really can't see why you're bothering to post if you have nothing constructive to say.

I am 'bothering' to discuss my faith in relation to the moral issue of abortion. My contribution is just as valid as anybody else's, although individual readers can accept/reject what I have to say as much as they like: it's called a public discussion forum.

And I'm not here to convert (although if anyone would like me to re/introduce them to the Catholic Church, I would be willing).

You calling me a poster 'boy' is a very condescending remark. Now who's being intolerant/bigoted? Pro-choice means killing, and if someone can convince me that it is morally ok to kill a baby, I'd love to hear it.

You are effectively trying to turn the argument of wheter 'abortion is murder' into one of 'Is the Catholic Church right' with your accusation that pro-choice people would react against my 'dogma'. You are making a feeble attempt coerce people into a pro-choice/anti-life stance by playing on the popular activity of church-bashing without actually addressing the issue.

I could equally ridicule humanism as being a destructive and irresponsible individual freedom that has been granted boundless space. Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil means we now live under some arbitrary, sociological law where truth is the majority vote or latest opinion from the courts.

Finally, I'd prefer if you refrained from the bully-boy tactics of asking me "why you're bothering to post if you have nothing constructive to say".

Dades

Closing Doors wrote:

A little OTT perhaps but I do believe I have a valid underlying point.

Sorry it's been a long week.

But comparing the termination of a pregnancy to killing someone in their sleep is just disingenuous IMO.

Peace out.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Christians and other people with other religions might as well resign from this debate then.

If they are basing their belief on the topic on fundamental relgious dogma that cannot be altered through either discussion or opposing arguments, then yes I see very little point in them "debating" anything, as TC has already pointed out.

Or put it another way, is there any point in me arguing to you, or even suggesting, that what your god/religion says is actually wrong?

Vangelis wrote:

Know what you speak of before you speak it. It has been detected by embryo-researchers that the embryo can react to movement and sound from a very early stage for instance.

Your term "very early" is completely misleading in that context. A human feotus can react to sound and light after about 24 weeks of development. The human nervous system and brain begins to develops with in the feotus well before this, after about 9 weeks, and as I have already said it is after this development that I begin to question the ethics of abortion.

You make it sound as if the zygote is dancing around to the Beatles :rolleyes:

Vangelis wrote:

Some would argue that our perception is part of our conscience, or soul.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this .. i would say perception is a major part of consciousness.

Zombrex

Closing Doors wrote:

So it would be ok to kill someone if they were in a coma after a car crash or something becuase they're unconcious?

I am talking about the word "consciousness" as in being a self-aware entity conscious of one selfs, not in the context of being awake or asleep. Even when asleep or unconscious you are still a "conscious human being."

I would point out that it is common to remove life support, or refuse medical help, to people have have suffered irreverasble brain damage (ie when you actually do stop being a conscious human being).

Closing Doors wrote:

But that you are denying them the oppurtunity to live out the rest of their lives as they see fit.

But if they never were aware of existance in the first place, then what are they missing. Every sperm in your body has the potential if given the oppertunity, to live for 100 years as a conscious human being. Is it wrong to deny them that oppertunity?

AndyWarhol

Wicknight wrote:

I am talking about the word "consciousness" as in being a self-aware entity conscious of one selfs, not in the context of being awake or asleep. Even when asleep or unconscious you are still a "conscious human being."

I would point out that it is common to remove life support, or refuse medical help, to people have have suffered irreverasble brain damage (ie when you actually do stop being a conscious human being).

Defining personhood on the basis of consciousness results in several problems. Firstly, it is impossible to know when a foetus goes from non-person to person status. Secondly, your attempt to argue a seperate existence of the conscience from the brain creates a mind-body dualism that is incompatible with scientific scrutiny.

Wicknight wrote:

But if they never were aware of existance in the first place, then what are they missing. Every sperm in your body has the potential if given the oppertunity, to live for 100 years as a conscious human being. Is it wrong to deny them that oppertunity?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Sperm is sacred?! That's like saying the e-coli bug is sacred. We couldn't (as I said earlier) type on our keyboards for fear of killing one if this were the case. Life begins at the moment of conception. This is the miracle of life and nearly all doctors/scientists agree that something miraculous occurs when a child is conceived. Are you trying to argue otherwise?

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

Firstly, it is impossible to know when a foetus goes from non-person to person status.

True, but it is possible to know when it couldn't possibly have consciousness. So it isn't really to necessary to know exactly when consciousness develops in the foetus as long as you limit abortion to a time you know consciousness cannot exist yet.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Secondly, your attempt to argue a seperate existence of the conscience from the brain

I have not attempted to argue anything like that

AndyWarhol wrote:

Sperm is sacred?! That's like saying the e-coli bug is sacred.

True, but the e-coli bug doesn't possess human genetic material and the e-coli bug won't develop into a fully formed human being.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Life begins at the moment of conception.

Says who (I mean apart from God). Conception could simply be another stage on the development of life. Why does life not begin at the formation of the sperm or the egg?

AndyWarhol wrote:

This is the miracle of life and nearly all doctors/scientists agree that something miraculous occurs when a child is conceived.

I have no idea why you keep repeating this, the joining of a sperm and egg cell is quite well understood by science, and is no more "miraculous" or mysterious than any other even in nature.

AndyWarhol

Wicknight wrote:

True, but it is possible to know when it couldn't possibly have consciousness. So it isn't really to necessary to know exactly when consciousness develops in the foetus as long as you limit abortion to a time you know consciousness cannot exist yet.

So you agree that it is impossible to know when a foetus goes from non-person to person status. I find it impossible to comprehend how you can justify killing a baby in this knowledge.

Wicknight wrote:

I have not attempted to argue anything like that

Effectively you have when you talk about this thing of consciousness that somehow enters the foetus after some arbitrary length of time. Maybe you're trying to say consciousness is a physical thing? The result of a couple of chemical reactions after a period of time? Consciousness grows in the foetus?

Wicknight wrote:

True, but the e-coli bug doesn't possess human genetic material and the e-coli bug won't develop into a fully formed human being.

My fingernails have my DNA (the genetic material for human life) in them. Fingernails are not human life. What sex are fingernails?

Wicknight wrote:

Says who (I mean apart from God). Conception could simply be another stage on the development of life. Why does life not begin at the formation of the sperm or the egg?

You won't be convinced by what the Church says so how about if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

Wicknight wrote:

I have no idea why you keep repeating this, the joining of a sperm and egg cell is quite well understood by science, and is no more "miraculous" or mysterious than any other even in nature.

Is the operation of an internal combustion engine well understood by scientists/engineers? Yes you might say. You can explain its operation in terms of pistons, spark plugs, exhaust outlets and air inlets etc. You can even describe its operation in terms of the chemistry of fuel and thermodynamics. We manipulate the laws of physics to our advantage, but nobody can say precisely and fundamentally why this engine works. The same can be said about the moment of conception. Just as the combustion engine is a miracle of nature, so too is the moment of conception and so too is consciousness.

black_jack

AndyWarhol wrote:

You won't be convinced by what the Church says so how about if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

Then I'm sure you'll find it very easy to find a plethora of sources to back up your claim.

AndyWarhol

black_jack wrote:

Then I'm sure you'll find it very easy to find a plethora of sources to back up your claim.

Specifically, what point are you trying to address here?

black_jack

AndyWarhol wrote:

Specifically, what point are you trying to address here?

This one

AndyWarhol wrote:

how about if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg.

Fairly unambigious claim by your good self, care to provide a statistic, or independent medical journal review article (not a article on godhatesabortionists.com or any biased site) to back up that claim.

Tar.Aldarion

sperm goes to egg and there may possibly be a baby,it must lodge in the wall first and then the foetus will form etc.
To be accurate yes when the sperm and egg make a combo it is life.The body however carries out self abortions sometimes.