Abortion is murder

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote:

.....Jesus was nailed to a plank of wood.

Allegedly nailed to a plank of wood.

Andywarhol, how many kids do you have?

MrP

Closing Doors

black_jack wrote:

And the aside from third trimester foetus (who possibly might survive), all aborted foetus will not and can not survive. The suggestion of survival as a defining principle of when it is right to abort, means that it is acceptable to carry out most abortions because they could not survive outside the womb.

Exhibit A, your Honour: A 3 week old zygote.
Exhibit B, your Honour: A 25 week old foetus.
Exhibit C, your Honour: A 2 week old baby.

None of the above are capable of surviving for very long on their own.

black_jack wrote:

Left alone is the important part. A foetus removed from the womb will not develop into a child,

Natural habitat of a foetus? The womb. Tearing it from the womb would not exactly qualify as leaving it alone.

Wicknight wrote:

It is also there before conception, in the sperm and egg cells of the parents, and for that matter in every cell in their body. You see the dust on the desk beside you. 90% of that is human skin, and every single skin cell in there contains the complete DNA makeup of you

Hmmm. Now I'm not a medical doctor but I'm fairly certain that any given baby's DNA is defined when the sperm enters the egg. The DNA present before is that of the parents.

Wicknight wrote:

Because I define the fundamental characterist of a "person" to be their consciousness and personality. That is what is lost when someone dies. No one cries because a person loses a kidney, or has a finger chopped off (well they cry a little), because these are just cells and organs. But a person loses higher brain functions, even if every other organ in their body is still functioning we consider them as good as death.

How can you quantify conciousness and/or personality? Someone else mentioned how early in their development foetus's can respond to external stimuli. I brought up the point earlier that someone who's sleeping is in a sense unconcious, why is not ok to kill them? Yes, they will become concious at some point in the future...but then so will a zygote.

Wicknight wrote:

The thing to remember is a zygote cell (the first cell that makes every other cell) is pretty much like every other cell in your body. But it isn't murder when your skin cells flake off and become dust, because you skin cells do not hold the qualities that we has humanity cherish and define ourselfs as. And i believe neither does a zygote cell.

It's not like "every other cell in your body" by virtue of the fact that if you insert a skin flake into a woman's womb, it will not result in a baby 9 months down the line.

The Corinthian

AndyWarhol wrote:

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.

However, as has already been pointed out, you’re not actually entertaining any real discussion. You are pontificating - your arguments are essentially rhetorical and not actually open to any debate.

As for it being valid, it certainly is as valid as other’s people; problem is that other people will often make contributions that are not valid. And when not they are challenged. And when challenged, you may either defend them or start whinging that people are bullying you.

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?

Bigoted? The observation I made about you being a poster boy for the pro-Choice side of the debate was not in any way centred at your beliefs, only in the dubious way you are expressing them.

For your average individual who is genuinely undecided on the issue and could be convinced either way (and I’ve come across many like that over the years), you’ve actually confirmed the very stereotype of what many consider religious fanaticism in that your argument seems to boil down to little more than this:

“Something is wrong because.” “Because what?” “Just because.”

Hardly a compelling argument, is it? Indeed, it is far more likely to cause that undecided individual to react against such a dogmatic approach and accept the seemingly more reasonable arguments made from the pro-Choice viewpoint. This is actually where I don’t actually understand where you’re coming from, as from a pro-Life standpoint you’re actually winning more people over to the pro-Choice side, which would seem bizarre for anyone who claims to care about the unborn child.

So if it upsets you, so be it, but it probably is time that you wake up and smell the coffee where it comes to how people react to things in the real World and that from a pro-Life standpoint you would be doing more harm than good.

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.

That’s an impossible request. You believe that based upon the fact that your religion has told you so. As such it becomes a question of faith, a basic principle that you accept without need for argument - an axiom, if you will - and so it becomes impossible to argue against 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.

As I suggested, you shouldn’t be worried at pro-Choice advocates reacting against your dogma. My point is that those who are in-between, perhaps veering slightly in one direction or the other will react against it.

As for Church bashing, I’ve not done any. I actually dislike the present fashion that exists in it. However, I will question you blind faith, but that’s another story - blind faith is not the preserve of any religion, or even secular ideology, for that matter.

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.

A “tilt of freedom in the direction of evil”? To date you seem to have only been able to define evil as simply denoting what you or your religion disagree with. As such, your use of the term is essentially little more than rhetoric and cliché. There are certainly concerns that one should have with moral relativism and, more correctly, utilitarianism (rather that humanism), and you’ll actually find that I highlighted that a few pages back. Of course, I managed to explain why logically rather than simply point a finger, cry ‘evil’ and hope that people took my word for it or be damned.

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".

Seriously, if you’re going to put yourself out in the line of fire you really shouldn’t whinge when someone takes a shot at you. It’s embarrassing.

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

So you see evolution as a way of interpreting the world around you. Interesting outlook.

Er ... thank you

AndyWarhol wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that if we selected the various atoms from the periodic table of elements, that we could some how contruct human life?

Yes ... "life" has been show to be a natural product of nature. Certain chemicals (mostly carbon based chemicals), under certain conditions, join together to form complex structures. After that the processes of evolution and natural selection produce ever more complex replicating chemical structures that eventuall lead to proteins and other ammino acids which are the build blocks for life. Throw in another 4 billion years of evolution and you produce human life, perfectly naturally.

AndyWarhol wrote:

If the sperm does not enter the egg, life is not created. I'm sure lots of sperm reach the egg but just one of them suceeds in penetrating.

That wasn't the question, the question was it is abortion to stop a sperm that you know is going to fertalise an egg from doing so?

AndyWarhol wrote:

I have laid my cards on the table. You know that Catholics believe human life begins from the moment of conception. Now please address the arbitraryness of concsiousness as being a prerequsite for human life. You are human life, I am human life, a baby is human life, a 3rd trimester baby is human life, a 2nd trimester baby is human life (I hope we agree on all these).

AndyWarhol wrote:

Now please tell me how a concieved foetus is not human life? You are saying it is not against the vast majority of medical opinion. How are they wrong?

You are missing the point of what I have been trying to get at all along.

Under that definition, your hair is a "human life", your finger nails are a "human life" you feet are a "human life" :rolleyes:

A zygote is just a human cell. If you destroy it, what have you actually destroyed? You have destroyed a human cell. If you clip your nails what have you destroyed? Millions of human cells.

So obviously you can define a "human" biologically as the cells that make it up, which starts as the zygote cells (which is what the scientists you quote are doing). But this definiation of a human life is not helpful when discussing murder or abortion because otherwise every doctor that removes a kidney is killing billions of human cells but they are not committing murder are they?

So the crime when committing murder is not simply the destruction of human cells. It is the destruction of the "individual" What what defines the individual? Is it the cells that make them up? No. If a person gets a heart transplant, or has their skin badly burnt in a fire are they a different person? No

What defines an individual is their consciousness, their personality, contained in their brain. As I have already said if a heart or kidney is transplanted the person is the same person. Can you imagine a brain transplant? Are they the same person then? Doubtful, the would be who ever orginally developed the brain.

So if individuallity, personality, and consciousness are the qualities of a life-form that we think it is a crime to destroy with something like murder, then what about something that is just a collection of human cells, but with no brain or nervous system, such as a zygote. If it doesn't possess the qualities that we consider define a individual, then is it an individual or just a collection of cells like your kidney or liver? And if it is not then what is lost by its destruction, just like what is lost by the destruction of you kidney or skin cells?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Ah so you have morals.

Was there ever doubt?:rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

You say you don't want other people to kill you. What if someone decided one day to kill you in the womb?

Well if it is before the development of my brain my feotus would be as aware of it's own existance as a liver cell is aware of its own existance. And do you think you shouldn't drink a pint of beer because your liver cells don't want to die?

AndyWarhol wrote:

How do you know a feotus does not want (as you put it) to be killed? Maybe because you can't remember being a foetus?

A feotus without a nervous system or brain doesn't "want" anything, it is not conscious and does not think, because it has not yet developed the organs required to do this.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Interesting. I'd love to know the reasons why you value human life above all other forms.

Ok ...

Human's are conscious and self-aware animals (not saying other animals are not, just that we know humans are). I believe consciousness is what is unique in a human being, not its cells or organs making it up, which if replaced do not change the individual. Individuality is something that cannot be replicated and should not be destroyed. I do not believe anyone has the moral athority to destroy a human consciousness, even if the consciousness is in the brain of a serial killer.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Getting back to my combustion engine analogy, it works, nobody can say fundamentally why it works, it just does.

I have no idea what you are talking about, a 1st year engineering student can tell you why a combustion engine does exactly what it does do :rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

The same can be said for the conception of a child, there are mechanisms to its taking place, but nobody can explain fundamentally why it occurs.

Yes, yes they can ...

AndyWarhol wrote:

The engine operating is miraculous, so too is the child being concieved. The fact that we place special emphasis on human life, is what makes the meeting of the egg and the sperm such a miraculous wonder of nature.

You seem to not understand what the word "miraculous" means ... didn't we already discuss this ...:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Closing Doors wrote:

How can you quantify conciousness and/or personality?

I have already said you can't, but you can quantify something that does not have consciousness. You liver cells are not conscious are they?

Closing Doors wrote:

Someone else mentioned how early in their development foetus's can respond to external stimuli.

And I responed to that with the fact that that happens weeks after the development of the brain. Now doesn't that tell you that consciousness, intelligence and self-awareness are contained in the human brain? So if a zygote or feotus does not possess a brain how can it possibly be a conscious entity?

Closing Doors wrote:

I brought up the point earlier that someone who's sleeping is in a sense unconcious, why is not ok to kill them? Yes, they will become concious at some point in the future...but then so will a zygote.

And I told you that is not the context the word "conscious" is being used. <Bangs head against wall>

Closing Doors wrote:

It's not like "every other cell in your body" by virtue of the fact that if you insert a skin flake into a woman's womb, it will not result in a baby 9 months down the line.

It will if you do a bit of giggery pokery ... haven't you heard of clones?

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Because I define the fundamental characterist of a "person" to be their consciousness and personality. That is what is lost when someone dies. No one cries because a person loses a kidney, or has a finger chopped off (well they cry a little), because these are just cells and organs. But a person loses higher brain functions, even if every other organ in their body is still functioning we consider them as good as death.

The thing to remember is a zygote cell (the first cell that makes every other cell) is pretty much like every other cell in your body. But it isn't murder when your skin cells flake off and become dust, because you skin cells do not hold the qualities that we has humanity cherish and define ourselfs as. And i believe neither does a zygote cell.

Obviously, you did not consider the rest of my message because you selected specific parts of it and ignored the rest. It's fine that you look at a person as this and that, but it seems like you bluntly dejected the essence of what I wrote. I am trying to understand the human body better. I'm open-minded, humble and receptible to knowledge and others' arguements.

If you did not have your cells, you would be half-made. Maybe we should appreciate our genes as a condition for the existence of our consciousness and personality? We depend on our genes, the build us - they are fundamental and they are part of our being.

I hope someone will heed my posts.

Vangelis

nesf wrote:

Really? Your understanding of academics, and science in particular, is lacking if you think that anything published in an academic textbook is true and without bias. Throwing up academic sources is easy, do you have either the knowledge or training to say you understand what is being discussed? Or the possible biases involved?

Are you a doctor or medical researcher? Do you know what a respected publishing house is in that field? Do you know the academic record of the writers? Were they well recognised for contributions to the field? How many peer-reviewed articles have they published on it in respected journals? Hmm?

I'm asking you exactly the same questions.

nesf

AndyWarhol wrote:

Tell you what right? Seeing nobody here wants to do the research for themselves, why doesn't somebody type in the book titles into google (or amazon) and see what they come up with.

My point was that it would be pointless. Few of us here would have the knowledge necessary to research this properly. If I googled, or whatever, for information my references would suffer from the same problems as yours.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The point about bias is understandable. The references are popular medical texts and were there strong bias, I seriously doubt they'd be used extensively in their fields/used much.

Bias is inescapable in this issue. Plus, this is an ethical bias not a scientific one. Whether one thinks of a foetus as a bunch of cells or as a human does not change it's physiology or it's behaviour etc.

AndyWarhol wrote:

No I'm not a medical researcher nor a doctor. Do I somehow not have an opinion all of a sudden? If you'd like to know about the background of the respective writers, why don't you find out for yourself. It's all there on the amazon site. Perhaps you'll spot something?

I never said you don't have an opinion, and if you've been reading my posts in this thread then you would see that I respect your's. My objection was to you throwing up academic references and pointing to them as proof.

AndyWarhol wrote:

If you get annoyed, then disprove them. btw I've a master of science degree. Science does not have an answer for the moral issue that is abortion, it does say, however, that human life begins from the moment of conception. Who are you to say otherwise?

To disprove them there would have to be an answer to this. Which there isn't. Who are you to state it as so? Human life, as I've said already, is not a very well defined term. If you wish, it's a value laden term and not scientific. People attach a kind of reverence to human life (which I don't disagree with).

Of course human life begins at conception. But, what I mean by that, and what you mean by that are different things. I view conception as the start of human life, ie the beginning of something that has the potential to be human. You seem to interpret that as it actually being human. It is a different thing and I believe you are misinterpreting your sources. But does this make a fertilized egg human and does it have the same rights as a human?That is a much more difficult question.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm really getting sick of justifying my sources when they've yet to be disproved, indeed addressed. I'd really prefer if people just addressed the point.

Interesting that you define human life as a being a member of the homo sapien species. You have some arbitrary cut-off point then that decides when one foetus is a homo sapien and the other is not? Interesting. Perhaps you can say more on this?

You would define a human by other terms? We are a species, we share certain traits. This is a valid and measureable quality of what a human is.

A foetus is not human in a strict sense. It does however, have the potential to become a human. To some this makes it human. To others it is not human until it is born. It is not a clear-cut issue.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Viablity? Viabliity is about the capability for life, development, or growing under favorable conditions. All zygotes are capable of becoming foetus's-babies-children-adolescents-adults, to deny them this is murder.

As I said, you can argue either way from it. Your point that denying them their potential to become a baby is murder. This is interesting. Then, it becomes a debate over whether it is ethical to prevent a foetus becoming a child rather than a debate over killing a baby.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Good for info-tainment. That's about it. As I said, I wouldn't go referencing from it in my ethics thesis (were I writing one).

Perhaps.

AndyWarhol wrote:

My references questionable? What kind of questions?

I've stated my objections above.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'll tell you what I certainly am impervious to: that is, the notion that killing a baby in the womb is some how, not murder. This is a warped reasoning and certainly makes no common sense as far as I can see.

See, you equate foetus with baby. If I did that I would whole-heartedly agree with you. But I don't believe that. I think it is a far more complicated question that just that.

The question isn't about killing babies. It is a question of whether a foetus, or fertilised egg if we are dicussing the MAP, has the same rights and protection that a baby has. You believe that it does. That does not make it a baby. It means that you believe that it should be treated as if it was a baby. There is a very important difference there.

nesf

Vangelis wrote:

I'm asking you exactly the same questions.

Did you even understand what I asked and why I asked it?

black_jack

AndyWarhol wrote:

I have given you references to three medical text books. Comprende?


As you point out, I've stated that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment of conception. This is what I said. Who are you to say otherwise?

You said, it you've just not proved it. Making a claim and then demanding I disprove it isn't the way debates work.

What unsubstantiated claim might that be? That I should have used the word zygote instead of foetus? Anyway they're both human and I don't think the essence of my argument was affected. Stop being so pedantic.

You're the one throwing about medical terms, demanding I do your research for you.

What are you talking about?! Have you read what I have been saying? Excuse me, but where did I say I was 'okay with terminations before the first eight weeks'?

Well you've been talking about foetus and only foetus, seeing as a foetus doesn't come into being for the first 8 weeks, is it acceptable to you to abort in the first eight weeks?

To address your analogy with one of my own: I submit that the majority of doctors agree that human life begins at the moment of conception, I give three references, the onus is on you! to discredit this claim. Are you sure you're not drinking or taking something else?

Yes and again, seeing as there aren't 4 doctors on the planet then your three sources doesn't support your claim that the majority of doctors agree that human life begins at conception. None of your links support your claim, so therefore you've not proven your point in the first place.

And seriously quit implying I'm drunk or whatever, it weakens your point, is tired and cliched.

So again please support your claim that the majority of doctors believe human life begins at the moment of conception.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

If you did not have your cells, you would be half-made. Maybe we should appreciate our genes as a condition for the existence of our consciousness and personality? We depend on our genes, the build us - they are fundamental and they are part of our being.

If you didn't have cells you would not exist, all a human is is billions of inter-connected cells ... sorry I am not following your point

Vangelis

nesf wrote:

Did you even understand what I asked and why I asked it?

Yes, I did. Please stop being so derogatory. At least that is what you seem like. I do not take Andy's party in this debate, I'm searching for the truth, or at least for a wider horizon. I do not agree with everything Andy posts if that's what you think, but I would appreciate it if you spoke to me in a more polite manner. I'm trying my best to be patient and polite with everyone.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

If you didn't have cells you would not exist, all a human is is billions of inter-connected cells ... sorry I am not following your point

That is what you believe(,just like I believe in God). I am suggesting that a person is more than cells and genes. That a human is nothing but flesh. If you are not open to other ideas and questioning your own, this debate is impossible. You have allready stated that a human being is nothing but a lump of cells. I was imagining that a human consists of something additional: a soul, perception, something that which is embodied by the flesh. I'm philosophising around the topic. If you are not willing to consider that as an idea - I mean not necessarily believe in it, but say "what if.. then" - then a debate around my post is impossible.

nesf

Vangelis wrote:

Yes, I did. Please stop being so derogatory. At least that is what you seem like. I do not take Andy's party in this debate, I'm searching for the truth, or at least for a wider horizon. I do not agree with everything Andy posts if that's what you think, but I would appreciate it if you spoke to me in a more polite manner. I'm trying my best to be patient and polite with everyone.

I was polite. In fact I thought it was quite a civil reply.

Vangelis

nesf wrote:

I was polite. In fact I thought it was quite a civil reply

I apologise for my misunderstanding then. Though it seems that many of your posts, but not yours only, are loaded with sarcasm, pride and self-righteousness. Qualities that do not really belong in a debate. It's better suited if one returns to the store with a broken washing machine bought two days earlier.

I'd be good for the debate if everyone made an equal effort to be humble and try to be understanding, and inquisitive with caution. After all, we are people, and we would most likely not behave like this if we actually sat in a couch together in the same room and having this debate. Pwwwease? *winks with her dark, long eyelashes*

nesf

People misinterpret me all the time. I wouldn't worry about it. They see insult where there is none.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

That is what you believe(,just like I believe in God). I am suggesting that a person is more than cells and genes. That a human is nothing but flesh.

Sorry, I didn't understand that was the point you were making ...

Vangelis wrote:

If you are not willing to consider that as an idea - I mean not necessarily believe in it, but say "what if.. then" - then a debate around my post is impossible.

Well I have already discussed the concept of a soul with AndyWarhol, including the idea of the "quickening" (the soul entering the body around the time of the first movement) with reguard to the question "how do you know when the soul enters the body". I raised the point that the tradition time the soul enters the body changes between the different religions, and even changes within the religions themselves. But no one really seemed to want to talk about that. AndyWarhol dismissed the idea completely. So its kinda hard to have a debate on the subject if people won't talk to you :rolleyes:

But by all means if you can put forward a constructive argument for the existance of a soul, and for the idea that the soul enters the body exactly at conception, I'm all ears and will happly debate it with you.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

People misinterpret me all the time. I wouldn't worry about it. They see insult where there is none.

What did you say about my ma'ma!! :mad:

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry, I didn't understand that was the point you were making ...

That's ok.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I have already discussed the concept of a soul with AndyWarhol, including the idea of the "quickening" (the soul entering the body around the time of the first movement) with reguard to the question "how do you know when the soul enters the body". I raised the point that the tradition time the soul enters the body changes between the different religions, and even changes within the religions themselves. But no one really seemed to want to talk about that. AndyWarhol dismissed the idea completely. So its kinda hard to have a debate on the subject if people won't talk to you :rolleyes:

But by all means if you can put forward a constructive argument for the existance of a soul, and for the idea that the soul enters the body exactly at conception, I'm all ears and will happly debate it with you.

I'm willing to listen to what you have to say about "qickening"(have never heard that word before though!). My only contribution to that discussion would be a couple of beautiful passages from the Bible that I could paste in, but I suppose it is wise to keep such out of this thread. However, I know that scientists are curious about the existence of a soul and when it embodies the foetus or embryo. No discoveries have been made, so any claim that the soul exists cannot yet be scientifically argued for.

...So Wicky, I'm listening!

bonkey

Vangelis wrote:

However, I know that scientists are curious about the existence of a soul and when it embodies the foetus or embryo. No discoveries have been made,

If they are interested, its not in a professional, scientific sense as there is nothing scientic about the concept of a soul in the first place.

so any claim that the soul exists cannot yet be scientifically argued for.

Exactly. And if you can't argue it exists scientifically, you can't look for some point of embodiment.

I mean seriously...

You can't show it exists. There is no scientific evidence that it has any physical manifestation.

So how on earth can a scientist wonder - in a professional capacity - when it enters the embryo/foetus, when it hasn't been establishe that it exists and does enter the embryo/foetus/later-or-earlier-stage.

Religion and science don't mix. They are, in fact, mutually incompatible.

Any scientist claiming to wonder - again, in a professional sense - about the issues you claim to know they do is a disgrace to their profession.

jc

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

I'm willing to listen to what you have to say about "qickening"(have never heard that word before though!).

Quickening
"The first motion of the foetus in the womb felt by the mother, occurring usually about the middle of the term of pregnancy. It has been popularly supposed to be due to the foetus becoming possessed of independent life."

This was a common held belief in the Catholic Church, that the spirit enters the body of the feotus when it first moves, that the movement of the child was a signal that the child is now "alive". This probably can be put down to the fact middle age doctors (if they can be called that) did not understand properly any of the stages or processes of feotus development.

The Jewish faith has a similar idea that until 40 days into the pregency the feotus is just "water" and not a human life.

The reason I mentioned the two ideas to AndyWarhol was to point out that the religious basis for life starting at conception is not as stead fast as he was representing. Assuming one accepts the idea of a soul, were the Catholic church and the Pope wrong about the quickening in the middle ages but they are right now?

Vangelis wrote:

My only contribution to that discussion would be a couple of beautiful passages from the Bible that I could paste in, but I suppose it is wise to keep such out of this thread.

Probably ... that is the problem with bringing religious view point into a "debate", as it is very hard to debate a faith based position as they are rarely based on an argument that can be debated in the first place

Vangelis wrote:

However, I know that scientists are curious about the existence of a soul and when it embodies the foetus or embryo. No discoveries have been made, so any claim that the soul exists cannot yet be scientifically argued for.

Well I think a "soul" has to be defined scientifically before it can be found.

Any "scientific" studies i am aware of into the idea of the soul have been carried out in very dubious circumstances. You might have heard of the idea that we lose 21 grams at the moment of death, which some have put down to the soul leaving the body. But the actual studies that came up with that figure were carried out a Dr. Duncan MacDougall in the early 1900s and have widely been dismissed as of little scientic value (his results were inaccurate and varied widely from the mixed upon 21 grams).
[/QUOTE]

Vangelis

bonkey wrote:

If they are interested, its not in a professional, scientific sense as there is nothing scientic about the concept of a soul in the first place.

Exactly. And if you can't argue it exists scientifically, you can't look for some point of embodiment.

I mean seriously...

You can't show it exists. There is no scientific evidence that it has any physical manifestation.

So how on earth can a scientist wonder - in a professional capacity - when it enters the embryo/foetus, when it hasn't been establishe that it exists and does enter the embryo/foetus/later-or-earlier-stage.

Religion and science don't mix. They are, in fact, mutually incompatible.

Any scientist claiming to wonder - again, in a professional sense - about the issues you claim to know they do is a disgrace to their profession.

If scientists who are curious about the possibility of souls existing - and indeed in a scientific sense - and you are ashamed, then tell THEM. I know one thing that certainly does NOT belong in the world of science and that is the kind of pride and narrow-mindedness you are displaying.

Religion and science are compatible. I suggest you take a look at www.johnpolkinghorne.org. Sir John Polkinghorne studied theoretical physics at Cambridge and later taught there after having completed a doctor degree. He passed from physics teaching to becoming an anglican priest and is now retired. He has written many, many interesting books on science and God, and some of his views can be read at his official homepage.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Quickening
"The first motion of the foetus in the womb felt by the mother, occurring usually about the middle of the term of pregnancy. It has been popularly supposed to be due to the foetus becoming possessed of independent life."

This was a common held belief in the Catholic Church, that the spirit enters the body of the feotus when it first moves, that the movement of the child was a signal that the child is now "alive". This probably can be put down to the fact middle age doctors (if they can be called that) did not understand properly any of the stages or processes of feotus development.

The Jewish faith has a similar idea that until 40 days into the pregency the feotus is just "water" and not a human life.

These are to curious theories. You must be aware though that both these ideas are man-made. I'm sure that when I say that word "man-made" you will want to respond "But the whole Bible is man-made." I cannot defend that other than with my faith that it was spiritually inspired. the Catholic church has been in favour of science if it could "prove" God's existence. It has even contrived things to support the Bible's verity, and this idea seems to be one of those things. In the middleages they wouldn't be capable of examining the foetus further so people had no choice but to believe the Catholic church.
I have never been much for things that are not spoken of in the Bible. It's like they add something to the Bible which was never there in the first place.

That is what is so misleading about the Church and the faith.

When you say "the Jewish faith" I think of Jewish faith as something outside of the Tora and the holy scriptures that they believe in. There is nothing that can verify the idea which you refer to. It seems it is just another one of those fancy, accessory myths - man-made if you like.

Wicknight wrote:

The reason I mentioned the two ideas to AndyWarhol was to point out that the religious basis for life starting at conception is not as stead fast as he was representing. Assuming one accepts the idea of a soul, were the Catholic church and the Pope wrong about the quickening in the middle ages but they are right now?

I'm not sure if I understand the question.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I think a "soul" has to be defined scientifically before it can be found.

For a non-believer this is the case. Hopefully, even though any scientific detection of the soul will not influence my faith, scientists will find a clue in the future.

Wicknight wrote:

Any "scientific" studies i am aware of into the idea of the soul have been carried out in very dubious circumstances. You might have heard of the idea that we lose 21 grams at the moment of death, which some have put down to the soul leaving the body. But the actual studies that came up with that figure were carried out a Dr. Duncan MacDougall in the early 1900s and have widely been dismissed as of little scientic value (his results were inaccurate and varied widely from the mixed upon 21 grams).

I'm familiar with this. It caught me by surprise when I first head of it. Would have been beautiful if it was true. I know other examples relating to near-death experiences where the participants experienced much the same thing. White light welcoming them, a feeling of enormous peace and as if they were crossing a border into another world. Mabye it is like this when we die, but psychologists have had other opinions. I need to find something about the psychological view on this before I let more dribble pass my mouth.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

You must be aware though that both these ideas are man-made.

Well I think they are an attempt for the church to deal with the fact that the Bible is largely silent on the issue of abortion.

AFAIK, the status of the feotus is defined as property rather than a human life in the Old Testement. A man who assaults a pregnent woman resulting in a mis-carriage must pay compensation to the husband to compensate for the loss in a similar manner to other property.

The New Testement is silent on the status of the unborn child.

Vangelis wrote:

I have never been much for things that are not spoken of in the Bible. It's like they add something to the Bible which was never there in the first place.

I take it you are not Catholic

Large portions of Christian and later Catholic dogma were added after the Bible, things such as the idea of original sin, and the virgin birth.

Vangelis wrote:

When you say "the Jewish faith" I think of Jewish faith as something outside of the Tora and the holy scriptures that they believe in. There is nothing that can verify the idea which you refer to. It seems it is just another one of those fancy, accessory myths - man-made if you like.

The Babylonian Talmud states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

nesf

Vangelis wrote:

Religion and science are compatible. I suggest you take a look at www.johnpolkinghorne.org. Sir John Polkinghorne studied theoretical physics at Cambridge and later taught there after having completed a doctor degree. He passed from physics teaching to becoming an anglican priest and is now retired. He has written many, many interesting books on science and God, and some of his views can be read at his official homepage.

His works look more at the reason behind what happens rather than what happens itself. In essence he doesn't argue that science is related to God. He just points out that science doesn't rule out God. There is a difference.

Plus, tbh, look at the US and the scandal over intelligent design. Religion and science are totally dissimilar. On is based on rational empirical observation the other is based on belief and faith.

No scientist who is worthy of the name will look at any occurance and say "It is because God willed it". There are scientists however who look, in physics say, at the extraordinary symmetries shown at microscopic level or the inante sense of order and they will say that they believe that there is a God behind it.

But they will never claim such is a scientific theory or claim. Religion doesn't need science, science neither proves nor disproves God. It looks at the world around us and seeks to understand it. It does not, and should not, claim to ever understand or investigate the realms of faith. They are inherently outside of the scope of science.

bonkey

Vangelis wrote:

If scientists who are curious about the possibility of souls existing - and indeed in a scientific sense - and you are ashamed, then tell THEM.

I am not ashamed. I am offended by what can only be wither their inability to fundamentally understand what their profession is or their deliberate misrepresentation of same.

As for telling them - I will quite happily do so any time one of them claims to be speaking scientifically when discussing a non-scientific concept in my presence.

As for this thread...welll...I'll limit myself to responding to the person passing on the claims of these scientists.

I know one thing that certainly does NOT belong in the world of science and that is the kind of pride and narrow-mindedness you are displaying.

The pride I display is pride in the level of respect science has carved out for itself as a result of developing and adhering to rigid standards and methodologies.

The narrow-mindedness is that I am unwilling to see others redefine what science is to hijack that respectability for something that is not scientific.

In short, something being scientific in nature is in and of itself a worthy accolade because of the implications that are automatically associated with the term.

Allowing non-scientific agendas to subvert that respectability is not something I will ever see as acceptable. All it serves to do is undermine the value of science to the furtherment of anything else.

I suggest you take a look at www.johnpolkinghorne.org.

I just did (although there's no 'John' in the URL). I see nothing there to contradict what I said. Indeed, the author supports exactly what I suggested - that religion and science have nothing to do with each other.

Allow me to quote from one of his works (emphasis mine):

science itself can no more dictate to religion what it is to believe that religion can prescribe for science what the outcome of its inquiry is to be. The two disciplines are concerned with the exploration of different aspects of human experience

Got that? Science cannot say when a soul enters the body, because the soul is a religious concept. To do so would directly contradict Polkinghorne's own understanding.

So considering when the soul enters the body is not a scientific question. Ergo, anyone claiming to ponder it in a scientific context either is dweliberately misrepresenting what science is, or doesn't understand it themselves. In neither case is my suggestion that they are a disgrace to their profession inaccurate.

The notion of a scientist professionally considering when the soul enters a body is simply ludicrous. A scientist can still consider the question, but equally so can a brick-layer. In both cases, the question has nothing to do with their profession. If a brick-layer told you the question of when a soul entered the human body was fundamentally a brick-laying issue, you'd laugh, right? And yet I'm accused of being prideful and narrow-minded for treating the notion that it is scientific just as dismissively?

You must be aware though that both these ideas are man-made

Can you give an instance of an idea which isn't man-made?

Let me clarify....you choose to believe some people when they say something came directly from God. Fair enough - I've no problem with that. Presumably you choose to disbelieve others for making similar claims, particularly when their divinely inspired claims are in contradiction of the ones you already believe.

Now....is your choice of who to believe/disbelieve also divinely inspired (and thus incapable of being incorrect) or man-made (and thus fallible) ??? And if god is divinely inspiring you to know whats right and whats wrong....why isn't everyone else getting the same treatment. And when two peopel believe they are divinely inspired, but believe in seperate things...which one of them is actually divinely inspired, and which is wrong?

Ultimately, the concept of divine inspiration equating with absolute correctness is unsupportable. Every religion that I am aware of which preaches a concept like divine inspiration also preaches the imperfection of man. How then can they not conclude that although the message may be divinely inspired, we mere mortals are doomed to not interpret it fully correctly.

In short, even diivine inspiration, ultimately, must be somewhat man-made. Otherwise it would be perfect....and we know it isn't.

jc




jc

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Well I think they are an attempt for the church to deal with the fact that the Bible is largely silent on the issue of abortion.

AFAIK, the status of the feotus is defined as property rather than a human life in the Old Testement. A man who assaults a pregnent woman resulting in a mis-carriage must pay compensation to the husband to compensate for the loss in a similar manner to other property.

Could you please find the passage where it says so? I'm not saying I disbelieve you, I'd just like to see it. Many of the laws of the Old Testament have been created by the people, and it usually says when a law comes from God. However, I cannot say if that is the case here.

Wicknight wrote:

The New Testement is silent on the status of the unborn child.

Apparently not. When Christ sacrificed himself he marked the beginning of a new era where people were not bound to live under the law - the laws of the Old Testament. After having studied the New Testament, the clearest message I have gathered from it is: "to love your next as you love yourself". That to me is crucial in a debate about abortion. It says everything about how we treat other people, even foetuses.

Wicknight wrote:

I take it you are not Catholic

You're right. But I have no problems with Catholics.

Wicknight wrote:

Large portions of Christian and later Catholic dogma were added after the Bible, things such as the idea of original sin, and the virgin birth.

You've been mistaken here. The virgin birth is an actual truth according to the Bible. The term 'virgin birth' may be a bit confusing though. Mary gave birth without having slept with another man, but she was impregnated by the Holy Ghost. So she was in human sense still a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

The original sin I'm not sure what is actually. I guess I've been blessed.
But I'd like to know!

The Babylonian Talmud states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

The Talmud is a collection of texts which give guidance to how Jews should interpret the world around them, if I am not mistaken then. Do you know the Talmud well?

Vangelis

nesf wrote:

...look at the US and the scandal over intelligent design. Religion and science are totally dissimilar. On is based on rational empirical observation the other is based on belief and faith.

I don't live in the US, so what is intelligent design all about?

nesf wrote:

No scientist who is worthy of the name will look at any occurance and say "It is because God willed it". There are scientists however who look, in physics say, at the extraordinary symmetries shown at microscopic level or the inante sense of order and they will say that they believe that there is a God behind it.

But they will never claim such is a scientific theory or claim. Religion doesn't need science, science neither proves nor disproves God. It looks at the world around us and seeks to understand it. It does not, and should not, claim to ever understand or investigate the realms of faith. They are inherently outside of the scope of science.

In the end is up to faith. And faith doesn't need science, I know. By the way, I prefer using the word faith, not religion. Religion is church-going and rituals for the sake of rituals.

bonkey, are you a scientist?

You seem to have made up your mind on what divine inspiration is, nothing but a man-made thing and whatever I say cannot convince you otherwise. Not that it was ever my intention to convince anyone.

robinph

Vangelis wrote:

I don't live in the US, so what is intelligent design all about?

Its about spaghetti and pirates.

http://www.venganza.org/

bonkey

Vangelis wrote:

bonkey, are you a scientist?

Is it relevant? Or was it rhetorical?

You seem to have made up your mind on what divine inspiration is, nothing but a man-made thing and whatever I say cannot convince you otherwise.

No, no. Thats not what I'm saying. I didn't say nothing but man-made, I said that it must be at least somewhat man-made.

The point I was making is that there are so many people of so many opinions, ranging from very similar to irreconcilably different all of whom know their understanding is the correct divinely-inspired one.

They can't all be right, so how can they all be divinely inspired? And if they're not all divinely inspired, what origin do those thoughts have that people are mistakenly believing to be divine? Are they not man-made?

jc