When does life begin? Granite vs. reality

[2ephesians8]

Yeah, he's got some sweet dance moves doesn't he?....

 

[Granite]

I've been pretty blunt: in saying when I think life begins, what constitutes personhood, yadda-yadda.

 

[2ephesians8]

But a blastocyst or zygote or unattached egg is not a "baby," in my opinion. We're talking past each other.

I'm not talking past you, maybe above you, but not past you.

OPINION. This is where the problems arise. When man's opinion riegns supreme, chaos is sure to take hold for your opinoin and the next guy's opinion are sure to collide.

 

[On Fire]

I've been pretty blunt: in saying when I think life begins, what constitutes personhood, yadda-yadda.

Seriously, dude, answer the question: If it's a "mystery" then why wouldn't you err on the side of life? Why would you say "I have no idea when life begins so ABORT!"?

Why not err on the side of life?

 

[Poly]

What she's doing is centering on one argument I mentioned and ignoring everything else I said, which you're also doing. As I said, the elderly or disabled or mentally retarded would not be at risk because they are the weakest members of society. This too has gotten completely ignored.

This makes no sense. They're "the weakest members of society" because of reasonings you've given which suggest one isn't yet human or isn't considered to have "personhood".

The ability to defend oneself and recognize your personal rights and liberties indicates higher thought, higher thinking, and self-awareness.

.

In other words, sentience, self-awareness, and potential to enjoy personal rights--and fight for them--could all be used as criteria for "personhood."

So how can you make the arguement that the elderly, disabled, toddlers, etc. are not at risk due to being the weakest members of society when what makes them weak are the very descriptions you've been giving that suggest one might not be human?

By the way, Poly, you of all people shouldn't be giving lectures on the dispensing of snide remarks. I mean, come on. A lot of us here are guilty of that, yes?

See, there you go again. You want to make it look as if I "lectured" you simply because you use snide remarks.

(Free rep points for the first person who can tell me what my actual "lecture" was to granite.)

 

[skeptech]

Thoughts to ponder: :blabla:

:yawn:

Passages out of your Bible are hardly a convincing argument.

 

[Granite]

Seriously, dude, answer the question: If it's a "mystery" then why wouldn't you err on the side of life? Why would you say "I have no idea when life begins so ABORT!"?

Why not err on the side of life?

If the choice is, say, between taking a morning after pill or not, or using The Pill or not, I'd say let the couple make that call. I guess I can see where some of you guys would jump and assume I'm touting abortion, but I'm not and it's unfortunate you can't see that.

 

[2ephesians8]

:yawn:

Passages out of your Bible are hardly a convincing argument.

READ:
Skeptech perfers to be bound in lies. Don't bother him.

 

[Granite]

This makes no sense. They're "the weakest members of society" because of reasonings you've given which suggest one isn't yet human or isn't considered to have "personhood".
.



So how can you make the arguement that the elderly, disabled, toddlers, etc. are not at risk due to being the weakest members of society when what makes them weak are the very descriptions you've been giving that suggest one might not be human?




See, there you go again. You want to make it look as if I "lectured" you simply because you use snide remarks.

(Free rep points for the first person who can tell me what my actual "lecture" was to granite.)

They're not because the elderly, for example, are simply in the twilight of their life. Toddlers are more than capable of reason (however crude or primitive), can sense danger, and can learn. The disabled encompass a very broad category but considering they are vulnerable but can still (in many cases) express awareness of themselves and surroundings, my argument would still stand.

I'd say this is less a discussion about what is "human" so much as it constitutes a discussion about what constitutes "personhood."

 

[skeptech]

If it's a "mystery" then why wouldn't you err on the side of life? Why would you say "I have no idea when life begins so ABORT!"?

But it's not a "mystery". Egg + Sperm = Life. It grows (as only something alive can do).

Why not err on the side of life?

Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.

The question isn't "when does life begin," but "when does life become of value." The line for when it's OK to abort, murder, execute, euthanize, etc. is drawn according to this relative value.

Have you read "The Sea Wolf"? There's a dose of reality!

 

[2ephesians8]

If the choice is, say, between taking a morning after pill or not, or using The Pill or not, I'd say let the couple make that call. I guess I can see where some of you guys would jump and assume I'm touting abortion, but I'm not and it's unfortunate you can't see that.

This is touting abortion. Don't decieve yourself and pretend that you have no responsibility for the laws in our nation. Shrugging your shoulders and walking away doesn't release you from your civic responsibility to protect the 'weakest among us'.

 

[Granite]

This is touting abortion. Don't decieve yourself and pretend that you have no responsibility for the laws in our nation. Shrugging your shoulders and walking away doesn't release you from your civic responsibility to protect the 'weakest among us'.

...we would also disagree as to whether anything or anybody is murdered by the pill. I'd say no, you'd say yes, we'd be at loggerheads. I've been there and done that discussion several times on TOL.

 

[skeptech]

READ:
Skeptech perfers to be bound in lies. Don't bother him.

Well, it seems pretty clear to me that this argument applies much better to those who are bound to 2000-year-old fairy tales and myths.... To each his own.

 

[avatar382]

I'll talk slower....

W h y - d o - y o u - b e l i e v e - t h a t - n a t u r e - t a k i n g - i t s - c o u r s e - i s - a - l i c e n s e - t o - k i l l ? ? ?

You're missing my point.

I'm going out on a limb here and state some assumptions I am making:
-You believe that the life of a fertilized egg not yet implated in the uterus is identical in value to a full grown human
-You believe that the process of human pregnancy and birth was designed by your god
-Both of these beliefs are supported by the Bible

Bringing to light the fact that 40-70% of fertalized eggs are "aborted" naturally -
which is these is true:
1.) These deaths are accidental, meaning that your god's design for pregancy is horribly flawed - as a 60%-30% survival rate is pretty atrocious!
2.) Your god is intentionally allowing "people" to die en masse for some reason
3.) Insert another reason here, I'd love to hear it.

Option 2 is interesting. If you take a conservative Christian view on salvation, these "people" that are naturally aborted because they naturally fail to implant into the uterine wall go to heaven. Then, from a Christian point of view, being "aborted' naturally is actually a fantastic gift from god because one is created and then taken straight to heaven without the trials of a regular mortal life, or the possibility of being tempted into sin and hell. It's like a getting a "Go straight to heaven, do not pass go, do not collect $200" card.

So, why do Christians not celebrate the fact that so many souls are going straight to heaven via "natural" abortion?

Clarification: Personally I do not believe any of the above, I am just trying to question from a conservative Christian point of view. I believe that the sex/fertalization/pregnancy process has evolved to be as efficient as it needs to be (which is apparently 60-30% survival rate) and that the pregnancy process has not even begun until the egg is fertilized AND successfully implants in the uterus.

 

[2ephesians8]

Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.

The question isn't "when does life begin," but "when does life become of value." The line for when it's OK to abort, murder, execute, euthanize, etc. is drawn according to this relative value.

You are so far from the 'hard truth', it's not even funny.

 

[avatar382]

Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.

The question isn't "when does life begin," but "when does life become of value." The line for when it's OK to abort, murder, execute, euthanize, etc. is drawn according to this relative value.

Have you read "The Sea Wolf"? There's a dose of reality!

Excellent post and a very insightful view into human nature.

 

[2ephesians8]

Well, it seems pretty clear to me that this argument applies much better to those who are bound to 2000-year-old fairy tales and myths.... To each his own.

Yeah, I choose 'Non-smoking'.

(Tell our Government that their laws are based on fairy-tales and see what kind of response you get. :kookoo: )

 

[Poly]

They're not because the elderly, for example, are simply in the twilight of their life. Toddlers are more than capable of reason (however crude or primitive), can sense danger, and can learn. The disabled encompass a very broad category but considering they are vulnerable but can still (in many cases) express awareness of themselves and surroundings, my argument would still stand.

I'd say this is less a discussion about what is "human" so much as it constitutes a discussion about what constitutes "personhood."

An elderly Alzheimers patient I knew died recently. In the very last stage of her condition she was non-responsive, unable to talk or eat. She basically laid in bed, motionless and just breathed. Would you consider her human? (I know, you hate that word)....ok, so was she considered not to have "personhood"?

 

[2ephesians8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptech

Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.

The question isn't "when does life begin," but "when does life become of value." The line for when it's OK to abort, murder, execute, euthanize, etc. is drawn according to this relative value.

Have you read "The Sea Wolf"? There's a dose of reality!



Excellent post and a very insightful view into human nature.
:down: :vomit:

 

[Granite]

An elderly Alzheimers patient I knew died recently. In the very last stage of her condition she was non-responsive, unable to talk or eat. She basically laid in bed, motionless and just breathed. Would you consider her human? (I know, you hate that word)....ok, so was she considered not to have "personhood"?

Yes, of course, and to your second question, no. (I hate answering in a double negative!)