It’s no mystery why the AtheoLeft has no compassion for the unborn. It is eminently predictable from their major self-anointed moral premise, that of Messiahism. The moral eliteness with which the AtheoLeft feels it is endowed presents as presumptive saviors of the oppressed, the victims of the world. So this moral worldview needs not just the elites, it also requires victims in order to implement the Victimology. (Note 1)
Victimology is a push-pull arrangement, a mutually beneficial quid pro quo, where the Victims support the power of the Messiahs, and the Messiahs support the Victims with tangibles. It is classic Co-Dependence, in all of its components of emotional disorder. Because it is coupled with narcissism, a disorder which can never recognize any defect in itself, the Victimhood becomes a moral tenet, and any obstruction to the pursuit of the moral tenet is a moral violation seen to be the equivalent of heresy and or/insanity.
The problem with Victimology is not that it exists; the problem is that it is a wide-spread religious type of worldview which infects entire subpopulations with its political sweep and control. And the Victims remain “Victimized” perpetually, as is necessary to perpetuate the Messiahs.
The subpopulations are divided into victim types, such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. The most important features of each type are willingness to participate in the codependent relationship, and the ability to provide the support which the Messiahs require.
That leaves the unborn out of the equation. The unborn have no resources to commit to the support of the Messiahs. They have no voice by which to protest their own treatment. They succumb quickly to attack, and are disposed of easily.
Fortunately for the Messiahs though, there is a member of that group which can be exploited successfully: the mother. So the mother becomes a victim of the fetus, and the fetus becomes the oppressor of the mother. When the oppressor is killed, the mother is freed, and she is free to repeat the liberation from her next oppressive fetus at will.
So there is absolutely no remorse for the fetus, even if it is viable and in the birth canal, no Messiah will decry its willful destruction because it is the oppressor, not the oppressed in the Messiah/Victim equation. Further, every attempt is made to disparage the fetus. It is a blob of undifferentiated cells; it is just a tissue mass; it is denied personhood by the Messianic priests who self-anoint with the moral authority to decide which individuals can be killed because they are not “persons”. There is no recourse for the fetus, no appellate court, no occupy movement; there are only ineffectual protesting people designated as terrorists (some of whom are). The fetal killing doesn't stop.
The abortionist who kills the annoying fetus, however, is a hero, a knight who slays the oppressor against all odds, thereby saving the woman from her distressful oppression by her fetus, and completing the Messiah Mission for the elites.
Trying to squeeze any remorse or regret or compassion or empathy from the elitist, Messianic AtheoLeft is not possible: the fetus deserves none of that according to the codependent equation which dominates their worldview. Compassion for the oppressor is outside the moral Messianic boundaries.
So finding no empathy for the killed might seem abnormal, but at its root it fits the AtheoLeft’s worldview perfectly. As does the resulting moral attack on anyone who illuminates the Messiah/Victimology codependent relationship. To have it illuminated is a moral heresy which must be attacked, and attacked in moral terms: Hate for example. Demanding human rights for the fetus (oppressor) is seen as a moral defect not to be tolerated. It will be challenged as a Hate Crime to support rights for the fetus. And the antagonist will be called insane (who could possibly think that the oppressive fetus could have rights? Especially the right not to be killed? That is insane).
When it comes to insanity, and morality, the AtheoLeft seems to feel that they alone have the right to determine those things for the Other, the Herd, the Lessers who just don’t understand how elite the elite actually are. And the non-elite should exist as Victims in the codependent scheme of elite power, or they should be suppressed with the moral religious charges of hate, and of course insanity, presumably being cowed by these charges.
Maybe some are cowed. I’m not. The irrationality and the Nietzschean Will To Power of the elite, Messianic, codependent, AtheoLeft is readily apparent and easily demonstrated.
Note 1: Messianic Victimology also requires oppressors against which the Messiahs will fight valiantly to provide salvation for their perpetual Victims. That’s where the rest of the population comes in; it’s why corporations are demonized by the messianic consumers of their products. It’s why any and all fixed moral systems are demonized. It’s why the USA as a general concept is demonized. It’s why any technological advance in agriculture is demonized. It’s why personal responsibility and reputable character traits are demonized. It’s why white males are demonized.
All these (and others) serve as the necessary villains and oppressors which are required in the Victimological seqment of the Messianic AtheoLeftist worldview.
123 comments:
Don't know if it's fundamental attribution errors or just a plain straw-man building that makes you write like this.
It's obvious that you don't have the ability to produce a refutation in terms of attribution error or straw man, either one. So why do you comment, if you have nothing to say?
I'm not sure if you understand just what a fundamental attribution error is so I'll cut and paste from wikipedia.
"In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration."
To put it country simple - if you disagree with someone then you tend to use dispositional explanations for their behaviours. This we can see in spades in this post. The post is entirely a projection in dispositional language.
You won't see refutations because the values and motives you attribute to people are in your head. Is that more clear?
Pubalco said,
"You won't see refutations because the values and motives you attribute to people are in your head. Is that more clear?'
And that is bogus. If they are not real, then they are refutable. So, go ahead and refute them. If you cannot, then - well - you cannot.
Let me help.
Demonstrate the compassion of the AtheoLeft for the 54,000,000 +/- dead fetuses created by the taxpayer-supported abortion industry. That should be easy, if that compassion exists.
Demonstrate that homosexuals and feminists and unions and ghetto blacks do not consider themselves to be victims, and are not considered as such by the Leftist political machine, which is not in perpetual savior mode. Demonstrate that the "big tent" is not primarily just a collection of Messiahs and Victims who feed off of each other.
Demonstrate that the AtheoLeft does not demonize someone or something whenever a crisis arises, thereby creating an oppressor.
If it is all a fantasy, then it should be easy to demonstrate. But you will not do it, because you know it is a valid portrayal of the AtheoLeftism and the Leftist political establishment and their constituencies.
Do it.
Can you at least be rational? It's your responsibility to back up your assertions not others responsibility to refute them. You said they were "readily apparent and easily demonstrated."
"If they are not real, then they are refutable."
The onus lies with you to provide evidence for your assertions. And your post is filled with assertions. They are evidence-free assertions based on your own opinions. Then we can examine your evidence if you can find some.
Again to put it country simple with an example - if I say there is a invisible elephant living in space then it is my duty to provide evidence for that NOT your duty to prove it wrong.
"Demonstrate the compassion of the AtheoLeft for the 54,000,000 +/- dead fetuses created by the taxpayer-supported abortion industry."
You could actually do that yourself easily. You could google "atheists against abortion" and find the left-wing organisations and individuals from that list. They are there. That's were you could start if you honestly wanted to consider the issue. You have the ability to look on your own. But you need to think and learn about rational thinking first.
Imagine if I wrote a post about how "Christo-rightists" celebrate the slaughter of one million Iraqi men women and children and are looking for their next victim because in their mind they can do no wrong because they have Jesus on their side. Until I provided evidence it still would be nothing more than an assertion. The onus would be on me to provide evidence and then we could both examine the evidence.
It would fantastic to have some theistic commentators throw in their perspective for these viewpoints.
pubalco said,
"The onus lies with you to provide evidence for your assertions. And your post is filled with assertions. They are evidence-free assertions based on your own opinions. Then we can examine your evidence if you can find some."
And here we have the standard Atheist intellectual dodge: failure to support your own claim of falseness. Atheists think that they are special and have no need to support their own claims of rejection. Their claims are never material, evidence based; rather they are virtually always either just empty claims of personal attack (you are insane, deluded) or demands for evidence of that which is self-evident.
The process, intellectual and moral, of entering the Atheist VOID, followed by the acquisition of ungrounded morality and intellectual process is self-evident.
”Again to put it country simple with an example - if I say there is a invisible elephant living in space then it is my duty to provide evidence for that NOT your duty to prove it wrong.”
Your term “country simple” is a marker of your elitist arrogance.
All analogies fail, some earlier than others. Yours fails immediately due to having compared a fabricated delusion to observations of behaviors. You wish to make the comparison that way because you want the observations to be associated with the delusions which you have declared them to be. This is a standard False Association Fallacy.
You have claimed that the self-evident moral and intellectual process does not exist, yet it is confirmed here virtually daily by Atheists making spurious moral claims instead of providing the material, empirical evidence – upon which they claim to base their positions. And attacking the Other with claims of delusion, instead of fact.
Yes, the VOID does allow Atheists to make a wide variety of choices regarding their new morality. The Atheist at this site:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/04/why-im-atheist-whos-pro-life.html
…came to his decision by considering the innocence of the fetus… which at one time was himself:
”Like so many other men who were not yet ready to own up and accept responsibility for their actions, he gave my mother two options: abortion or he leaves. It’s obvious which choice she made, but many other women would have taken the opposite position.”
The VOID allows for any position to be taken; it is the self-ism which drives the direction which the decision takes. Even the Atheist-pro-lifers admit that they find it hard to come out of the closet, because they are not considered “real atheists”:
”Often, standing up for what you believe in is the hardest thing to do. Being a pro-life atheist is extremely difficult; the religious don't like you, and atheists think you're just pretending to be atheist.”
”The new wave of atheists seem to think being an atheist is just like being a liberal, only more extreme. Why do I have to believe in abortion just because I don't believe in god?”
”I'm tired of people telling me that I have to be pro-abortion to be an atheist! What does abortion have to do with god?”
http://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion#!/AtheistsAgainstAbortion?filter=1
It would appear that these pro-lifers are not afforded any love or tolerance from the Atheist community; rather they are an aberration, to be attacked. Not real Atheists.
(continued below)
The vast majority of Atheists – and all of them who have visited here and discussed abortion over the past 5 years – believe that they have the moral authority to determine the value of humans and whether they should live or die.
Notable example: Obama’s advisor, Emmanuel, drew up a chart of the value of humans over their life span. Pre-borns not even on the chart, and neonatals with almost no value at all.
”But you need to think and learn about rational thinking first.”
Typical insult from the Atheist ego-centric worldview.
”Imagine if I wrote a post about how "Christo-rightists" celebrate the slaughter of one million Iraqi men women and children and are looking for their next victim because in their mind they can do no wrong because they have Jesus on their side. Until I provided evidence it still would be nothing more than an assertion. The onus would be on me to provide evidence and then we could both examine the evidence.”
Re-read the above comments taken from your own search: Pro-Life Atheists being persecuted for their heretical positions on abortion by “real” Atheists.
Let’s try to get at least one thing straight: Atheists are unencumbered by any absolutes.
That is basic.
The Atheist may choose whatever moral and intellectual process he finds compatible. There are no absolutes. This is the Atheist VOID, the absence of absolutes, in which the Atheist is self-enabled to follow whatever path he identifies with... or creates for himself.
Further this is self-evident.
The rest tumbles out of that, first being the euphoric freedom from absolutes which so many report, and next the realization of personal superiority to those who are slaves to absolutes: personal elitism.
PZ Meyers published hundreds of “Why I Am An Atheist” personal memoirs from his readers. That trend was overwhelmingly obvious amongst those memoirs.
You may deny it all you wish; you may declare it delusional all you wish; but your declarations have no meaning unless you can defeat that which is self-evident on the one hand, and evidence-based on the other.
From an atheist perspective, is there, in fact, a natural connection between secularism and leftism?
"It would fantastic to have some theistic commentators throw in their perspective for these viewpoints."
Each man is born sinful. The unborn are not sinful. The soul enters at the first breath. For the Bible when a child is born and starts breathing it is the beginning. (Many verses support this) I don't beleive abortion is a sin unless used sinfully.
It is hazardous to produce unannotated biblical claims. Here are two easily found statements which go contrary to your claims:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Jerimiah 1:5
Also Psalm 139:13-16.
Biblically, life's beginning is not dependent upon breath, even though it claims that God ends life when he takes breath away.f
As for the "breath of life", Ezekial 37 refers not to birth but to resuscitation of "dry bones, bleached in the sun".
And the original "breath of life" was not referring to birth either, it referred to Adam, who was not born. Gen 2:7.
Exodus 21:22 is bound to come up; it does not say that it is OK to "cause a miscarriage"; the punishment is a fine to be determined by a judge. This is as opposed to killing woman, which is a capital offense. Some want to claim that causing the miscarriage is OK since it is not a capital offense, and that is not the case. Plus it does not address voluntary killing of the fetus, it addresses a disputation between two men with collateral damage to the fetus.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
Yep. Check this out: God knew the old testament prophets before they were even conceived! I'm sure even you don't say human life starts BEFORE conception! God tells Mary she will conceive and give birth to Jesus BEFORE she has conceived. Jesus's human life hadn't begun BEFORE He was conceived!
These verses don't tell us about when human life starts. They tells us about God's timelessness and knowledge.
AS to "breath". Breath is life. It's the same word in Hebrew.
Those dry bones in Ezekiel were given flesh again, remember?
" I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but they lived not. "
Then what happened?
" and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army. "
According to the Bible, life isn't a construction of FLESH. The breath God gives us is life!
The Bible verses you choose support me.
Life,
Unfortunately your argument from the Bible is without reference to birth; you read what you want to see. It is this type of extrapolative interpretation which gives the Bible a bad reputation. No where does it say that preborns are not alive. That is what you wish it said, not what it said.
Does it.
Foetuses don't breath in the womb so according to the Bible they don't have life. There's your link with birth. I accept what the Bible says over what politicians say. Simple as that. I think you are seeing what you've been told to see or what you want to see instead of truly reading the Bible and trying to understand it. Remember how your verses supported my understanding and didn't support yours? Your ideas are a recent political development not a Biblical one.
Your verses says the constructed flesh didn't live until God gave it breath.
The breath is spirit is life. Literally.
Although I don't agree with it, Life's argument is clear.
Meat + Breath = Life.
Meat without Breath = not living.
Everything quoted from the bible so far gives the impression that the writers of the Bible had that idea too.
Stan, when talking to Life you seem to be missing the fact that your "preborn" don't breath.
"From an atheist perspective, is there, in fact, a natural connection between secularism and leftism?"
Natural? No. There have been many connections in history around the world with leftism and religion. People on the left would take social justice issues for religious reasons. I believe the connection between Christianity and the Right-wing is an modern cultural development in this country.
Life,
The verses refer to construction ex-womb. You have given an opinion which doesn't match the verses; your opinion is that those verses extend to the womb, despite there being no reference to the womb, except in Exodus 21:22, where the destruction of a fetus is a criminal offense.
"in Exodus 21:22, where the destruction of a fetus is a criminal offense."
Read around Exodus 21. If you cause an unwanted miscarriage then you are simply fined, but if the mother dies then the penalty is “life for life.”
If the miscarriage was a murder then it would be "life for a life", wouldn't it? Doesn't support your view now, does it?
All I'm asking is that you read your Bible instead of having your ideas given to you first.
Looking for some help.
There's something I don't understand. Psalm 139 says "though I was made in a secret place, and fashioned beneath in the earth."
My more modern translation is still confusing to me "when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth."
Beneath the earth? What's these part mean?
Life said,
"All I'm asking is that you read your Bible instead of having your ideas given to you first."
You are actually an Atheist troll aren't you? Your fundamentalist rudeness betrays you. And your willingness to put no value on the life rather than accepting that it is a criminal offense also betrays you.
From the NIV:
"22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Since you insist on strict literal interpretation, then the above may certainly be interpreted to include serious injury to the fetus as well as to the woman.
King James:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Translation, Hebrew Transliteration, Masoretic
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischeif follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]
http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/exodus/21.html
Young’s Literal Translation (Hebrew to English):
” 22 `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
23 and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=YLT
No mischief? No dead “children”? not "fetus", but children. Prematurely delivered. Not dead.
And with mischief? Dead "children"? Then: life for life, etc.
Misinterpret all you wish. If you must be a fundamentalist literalist, then at least go to the source and explain word by word how you know exactly what it all means. This thread is done.
Oh yes. The breath of God is not the same as human breath.
Stunned said,
"Beneath the earth? What's these part mean?"
I don't pretend to know; I don't interpret literally, although I defend it against literalists who think they know God's mind intimately.
Ask Life.
Ask Life.
Poetic phrase meaning "womb".
"You are actually an Atheist troll aren't you? Your fundamentalist rudeness betrays you. And your willingness to put no value on the life rather than accepting that it is a criminal offense also betrays you."
I tried to be as polite as I could because I can understand that when the blinkers come off it can be shocking. I too believed exactly what the media and politicians told me the Bible said. It was such a shock to read it with an open mind!
And think I think life has no value is completely wrong. I know God doesn't consider all flesh living. There is a difference between the flesh and the flesh WITH BREATH. The breath is life. If you ever seen someone die you'd know that. I watched my mother die andshe breathed herself out. She departed with her breath. And what was left was not my ma. It was the flesh. My ma had left. The Bible supports this reality. It's true for both ends of life. the breath is life.
In Luke, "and having cried with a loud voice, Jesus said, `Father, to Thy hands I commit my spirit;' and these things having said, he breathed forth the spirit."
"the above may certainly be interpreted to include serious injury to the fetus as well as to the woman.
The subject of the sentence is the woman not her miscarriage.
If you must be a fundamentalist literalist
I'm not. I know that the fruit in "that her fruit depart from her" does not refer to fruit. Fetus is not a word Young would use.
The "mischief"and "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is injury to the woman not her miscarriage. It should be obvious. Miscarriages don't have teeth either. If the subject is rewritten so that miscarriage is the subject, it doesn't make any sense. You think after a miscarriage the man has to check if the miscarraige's teeth are damaged? No, of course not. The mischief/injury is to the woman.
Breath is a necessary but not sufficient condition for life. And human breath is not the same as the spirit breathed by a deity. As for "fruit", re-read the literal translation from the Hebrew: there is no "fruit", there are "children", without "mischief". Your denial is not based on actual Hebrew text, it is presumptive of personal desire to have a personal "truth" confirmed.
It's interesting that the phrase you cannot literally interpret suddenly becomes poetic, meaning whatever you personally decide that it means.
And you accuse me of political presuppositions, even though I have presented Biblical and Torah based verses which interpret far differently from what you claim. I think it is obvious where the blinkers are placed.
Correction to my comment above:
Breath is a necessary but not sufficient condition for life outside the womb. A non-breathing "piece of meat" as the fetus is being referred to can be seen to inhale and exhale even in the womb, "breathing" the amniotic fluid.
So according to you, either life/breathing starts with the act of breathing (in the womb), or it starts with the contact with air, which means that air is God/life, not the act of breathing.
Stopping breathing at death is not the only thing that stops. Stopping breathing is epiphenomenal with death, just as is stopping blood circulating, muscle animation and other epiphenomena which cease to function. There is no logical reason to connect stopping breathing with being the cause of death. It is a result of death, not a cause, except for suffocation which is brain death.
You claim not to be a literalist, and by interpreting "under the earth" as "womb" you confirm that to some extent. However, you are insisting on literal necessity when it suits your notion, even with your own non-literal twist to it. That is non-coherent, not that it matters; but it is an observation.
Finally it seems obvious that the life for a life...tooth for a tooth bit applies to both the mother and the "children" as is appropriate to the individual. There is no necessity for having teeth, even for the mother.
Since you've reference the "actual Hebrew text", you may be interested to know that under Jewish Biblical exegesis, abortion is not deemed murder.
They would seem to agree with Life, which lends credence to where the obvious blinkers are placed.
rikalonius,
I hit the wrong button: didn't mean to delete your comment. It's non-recoverable from my end. Sorry.
Please comment again, thanks.
anonymous
please choose a moniker so we know who we are talking to.
Jewish law is explained here:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html
And it suffers from rationalized extrapolative inference, for the same reason. The Maimonides concept of the fetus as a "pursuer" after the mother with the intent to kill her, if the life of the mother is threatened, demonizes the fetus with outlandish characteristics which are imbued to rationalize the death of the fetus.
There are triage situations, of course, but the rationalizations being made are not part of rational decisions which would attempt to save both parties.
And there is this:
" A fetus is a potential life, so we are not allowed to kill a fetus. However, if the fetus is endangering the mother's life and the only way to protect the mother is by taking the life of the fetus, then we must do so.
However, this is all only as long as the fetus is a life-in-potential. Once the baby's head has emerged from the birth canal, s/he has become a full-fledged human being of the same status as the mother. Even though the mother has a family to take care of and has proven herself viable and valuable, we consider this a matter of one life versus another. At that point, we can't give precedent to either life. Life, according to our tradition, is not something to which you can apply relative values."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish/What-is-the-Torahs-View-on-Abortion.htm
Life, maybe you should stop fixating on the one verse that you think gives you the best chance at fixing the argument on your personal bias.
Life said,
Read around Exodus 21. If you cause an unwanted miscarriage then you are simply fined, but if the mother dies then the penalty is “life for life.”
Reading comprehension is your friend (unless you have an agenda)
Ex 21:22-25 from the NIV
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman, better translated woman with child since the Hebrew word used is hā·rāh which is the term for a child in the womb; and the child is born prematurely (or wə·yā·ṣə·’ū which is to go out), the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands..
But if there is serious injury (ā·sō·wn ) you are to take life for life. I don't know how anyone could read otherwise that this is a discussion about injuring or not injuring the child in the womb, not the woman. Well, unless they want to read it that way.
In addition:
Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The children jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord.
The word is hab·bā·nîm and in all other instances it refers to children outside the womb.
Luke 1:39
At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb"
The word is βρέφος and it is the same word used to tell the Magi that they would find a baby born wrapped in swaddling cloths.
Life said
I can understand that when the blinkers come off it can be shocking. I too believed exactly what the media and politicians told me the Bible said. It was such a shock to read it with an open mind!
Maybe you should try reading it correctly and scholarly instead of with an open mind.
Anonymous said:
"Since you've reference the "actual Hebrew text", you may be interested to know that under Jewish Biblical exegesis, abortion is not deemed murder.
They would seem to agree with Life, which lends credence to where the obvious blinkers are placed."
Firstly, I made no personal statement on abortion. I merely pointed out that Life had incorrectly interpreted Exodus in order to support a biased position. I then went on to show another Hebrew and also a Greek word where a child in the womb is the same word used for a child out of the womb.
Secondly, consensus doesn't equal fact. Even if all Jews agreed abortion is not murder, that doesn't change the Biblical texts. The Catholic Church holds to certain tenets that I find to be extra-biblical or based on incorrectly interpreted passages. The fact that millions of Catholics believe it doesn't change the argument, anymore than I could charge an Atheist that he/she must believe in God because of the number of theists who believe in one.
Lastly You site nothing from the Exegesis that would support your statement. Could you please show me where the Exegesis deals with the subject of abortion and also declares it not murder. Thank you.
I'm sorry, are you saying rabbinical sages are incorrect in their interpretation of the Torah based on their rationalized interpretation of the text and demonization of the fetus?
Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.
"Ask the Rabbi: Abortion - Yes or No," at: http://www.aish.com/
I make no argument regarding the legality or morals of abortion, merely the interpretation of the "actual Hebrew text".
Life's interpretation agrees with the rabbinical sages.
There is also this:
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:
One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.
Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.
Anonymous said:
I'm sorry, are you saying rabbinical sages are incorrect in their interpretation of the Torah based on their rationalized interpretation of the text and demonization of the fetus?
That's an appeal to authority. First you are asking me to subscribe to the idea that all Rabbi are in a agreement on this point, which can be shown false just from these replies to not be the case.
Again, I merely showed the Hebrew (and Greek) word and how it was used in other instances, more specifically that the same word is used to describe a child and an out of the womb. How you wish to interpret that is up to you. Siting Babylonian Talmud explanations doesn't change the Biblical texts. And I persist in my argument, that consensus doesn't equal truth.
Anonymous,
Which anonymous are you? Why is it so difficult to post with an identifier?
You said,
”I'm sorry, are you saying rabbinical sages are incorrect in their interpretation of the Torah based on their rationalized interpretation of the text and demonization of the fetus?
First, this is an attempt at Appeal To Authority.
Second, which authorities do you choose to believe, since they tend to disagree? It is possible to rabbi-shop in order to find one that agrees with your desired conclusion – outside the actual words of the Pentateuch.
Third, yes. I am saying that extrapolating outside the explicit meaning of the original wording is actually the process of inserting opinion which is not warranted by the text itself.
It is apparent that this must be fought at both ends of the spectrum, since the actual words are abused by fundamentalist Atheists and fundamental Christians alike. If we have been allowed to have rational minds then we should use them in rationally guarding against abuse of the bible, and for understanding the limits of understanding the biblical deity based on linguistic and cultural differences that we no longer understand, as well cultural coloring from our own pagan age.
My position is this:
1. IF [it doesn’t say X], THEN [there is no established reason to consider X to be true].
2. IF [it is claimed that Q implies X], THEN [Q must be established as necessary and sufficient before X can be considered true].
All the inferences except for Exodus 21:22 are insufficient to be causes for belief in X.
Exodus 21:22 must be objectively read directly from the ancient Hebrew in order to judge its contribution to the question of abortion.
From this site:
http://ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/mte.pdf
Note that the ancient Hebrew glyphs are at the site, and the Hebrew words are below:
21:22
וְכִי יִנָצוּ אֲנָשִים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶּיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶּה אָסוֹן עָנוֹש
יֵעָנֵש כַאֲשֶּר יָשִית עָלָיו בַעַל הָאִשָה וְנָתַן בִפְלִלִים
we'khi yi'na'tsu a'na'shim we'nag'phu i'shah ha'rah we'yats'u ye'la'dey'ah we'lo yih'yeh
a'son a'nosh yey'a'neysh ka'a'sheyr ya'shit a'law ba'al ha'i'shah we'na'tan biph'li'lim
The literal translation is this:
and~ GIVEN-THAT they(m)~ will~ be~
STRUGGLE MAN~s and~ they~ did~ SMITE
WOMAN PREGNANT and~ they~ did~ GO-OUT
BOY~s~ her and~ NOT he~ will~ EXIST HARM
>~FINE he~ will~ be~ FINE like~ WHICH he~
will~ SET-DOWN UPON~ him MASTER the~
WOMAN and~ he~ did~ GIVE in~ JUDGE~s
English transliteration is this:
and (if) men struggle, and they smite {a}
pregnant woman, and her boys‡ go out, (but)
harm did not exist, he will :surely: be fined
{the} master {of} the woman will set
down upon him, and he will give {the}
judg{ment}s,
________
21:23
וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶּה וְנָתַתָה נֶּפֶּש תַחַת נָפֶּש
we'im a'son yih'yeh we'na'ta'tah ne'phesh ta'hhat na'phesh
and~ IF HARM he~ will~ EXIST and~ you(ms)~
did~ GIVE~^ BEING UNDER BEING
(but) if harm {does} exist, (then) you will give
{a} being (in place of) {a} being,
21:24
עַיִן תַחַת עַיִן שֵן תַחַת שֵן יָד תַחַת יָד רֶּגֶּל תַחַת רָגֶּל
a'yin ta'hhat a'yin sheyn ta'hhat sheyn yad ta'hhat yad re'gel ta'hhat ra'gel
EYE UNDER EYE TOOTH UNDER TOOTH
HAND UNDER HAND FOOT UNDER FOOT
{an} eye (in place of) {an} eye, {a} tooth (in
place of) {a} tooth, {a} hand (in place of) {a}
This describes an early, successful delivery just as clearly as it is possible to state using glyphs.
The accidental cause of the successful early delivery is a crime punishable by a fine; harm - undifferentiated by individual, mother or child - is punishable by equal harm to the person who caused the harm.
Any other reading is outside the actual text.
QED.
Citing rabbinical scholars as an authority on Jewish Biblical exegesis is not an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is an Appeal to Expertise.
I am simply pointing out that Life's interpretation of the text is in line with the consensus of the relevant experts in that field.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Anonymous said,
"I am simply pointing out that Life's interpretation of the text is in line with the consensus of the relevant experts in that field. "
Here's what you actually said:
"I'm sorry, are you saying rabbinical sages are incorrect in their interpretation of the Torah based on their rationalized interpretation of the text and demonization of the fetus?"
This is not the same thing as your claim above: You are implying in this statement that the opinion of the "rabbinical sages" is truth, not to be questioned.
The correct answer is that since you refer to "rabbinical sages" as if they are a monolithic group who are completely in agreement with each other, no, that is not the case: since there is disagreement, then at least some of them are incorrect, logically.
Also, if there are those whose sage opinions go counter to what is actually written, then those "rabbinical sages" are extolling pure opinion which is not supported by the text.
Grounding is not done by opinion, it is done by the original text, or if not that, then there is no grounding and everything is morally fluid and without principles except for human opinion. Playing with the text to generate meaning which is not there serves to unground the moral principles. Perhaps that is the intent.
You are implying in this statement that the opinion of the "rabbinical sages" is truth, not to be questioned.
Nonsense. I implied no such thing. If you cannot reasonably interpret modern English, you should doubly question your ability to interpret ancient Hebrew.
Question all you like, but recognize that experts in the field disagree with you. Recognize that citing experts in the relevant field is not an appeal to authority fallacy.
Anonymous,
Get out from behind the skirts of anonymity please. I have allowed you to hide for too long. You have been asked twice; now you are being warned.
Let's review:
Life said:
The soul enters at the first breath. For the Bible when a child is born and starts breathing it is the beginning.
Life said:
” AS to "breath". Breath is life. It's the same word in Hebrew.”
Life said:
” Your verses says the constructed flesh didn't live until God gave it breath.
The breath is spirit is life. Literally.”
The rabbis seem to think that when the head emerges, the life of the child equals the value of the life of the mother. An emergent head is not yet breathing: its lungs are still full of amniotic fluid, inhaled during breathing in utero. The lungs must be cleared by suspending the infant upside down to drain the lungs, and sometimes by slapping the back to expel the fluid.
Life said,
” Read around Exodus 21. If you cause an unwanted miscarriage then you are simply fined, but if the mother dies then the penalty is “life for life.”
If the miscarriage was a murder then it would be "life for a life", wouldn't it? Doesn't support your view now, does it?
All I'm asking is that you read your Bible instead of having your ideas given to you first.”
The rabbis:
” That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder. The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.”
The rabbis don’t agree in a monolithic fashion, even on the actual source for the subject. They do agree that the fetus is not just meat, however, and must be protected.
Finally, the text from the literal translation further indicates sufficiently that Life has no chance of supporting his case based on the text, yet he accuses bias against me for my interpretation.
Both of you are pushing your raw opinions as fact, without any factual support, either biblically, or rabbinically.
So you are saying Life's start of life could be two seconds later than most Rabbi's viewpoint?
Obviously not. I'm pointing out that the entire criterion is incorrect, if one takes the rabbinical position.
The bible says plenty about abortion in Numbers 5: 12- 28. It's a detailed "how to" in case you think your wife is pregnant with another man's baby. It tells you how to drag her fornicating ass to the temple where the priests will make her drink a concoction made from the dust of the temple floor (which was covered in blood-borne pathogens and animal faeces from all the sacrifices they were performing) and a special bitter water. I would think it would be extremely relevant to your topic but no-one has mentioned it.
142 alcorol,
Yes it is pertinent, and it has come up in the past.
Numbers 5:12-28 refers to something more drastic than an abortion. It refers to the destruction of the unfaithful woman's reproductive organs, as administered by God through an invocation placed by a priest.
The probable intent is to scare the hebrew women into fidelity, but taken at face value, the nasty results of the curse for a guilty woman would essentially destroy the woman both as a wife and as a respected member in that society.
The presence of a fetus is not discussed, but it would definitely be collateral damage if it were present at the activation of the curse in an unfaithful woman.
The possible death of a fetus at the hand of the deity is not the same as abortion due to "women's health care" or Privacy" of a woman's body at the known and final expense of the fetus.
This cannot be construed as making a biblical case for choosing to terminate one's own progeny.
It might be argued that the deity is evil for collaterally aborting a fetus, but then that argument would apply in spades to the abortion industry and Choice advocates.
On second reading, I think you are right about it being a method to destroy a woman's reproductive organs. I was wrong.
"It might be argued that the deity is evil for collaterally aborting a fetus..."
I don't think God really cares about fetuses. If you are from the wrong tribe then "...How blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalm 137)
"The possible death of a fetus at the hand of the deity is not the same as abortion due to "women's health care""
Question: Do you believe it is ethical for woman whose pregnancy is deadly to have it ended prematurely? Given that pregnancy and birth are two of the leading causes of death in women when combined.
Both of you are pushing your raw opinions as fact, without any factual support, either biblically, or rabbinically.
You have a poor track record of inferring intentions, in English. These are not my opinions. These are the opinions of people who are considered experts at interpreting the text in question. I think their interpretation is reasonable. I actually think you take greater liberties with your interpretation.
I personally disagree that life begins either at conception or at first breath. I've also provided substantial evidence that this IS the general consensus. Additionally, you can easily read a summary on Wikipedia.
They do agree that the fetus is not just meat, however, and must be protected. -You
Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.” -Quote
There are worlds of implication between what the quote consists of, and your statement. You choose your words quite selectively. Remember that pre-40 days they consider the fetus to be "mere water".
Similarly, I think your interpretation of biblical text is just as subjective as any other. The beauty and curse of poetic language is that it allows for such diversity of interpretation.
What baffles me is that people look to such poetry for moral guidance.
Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?
(I get an error when I try and log in with a name.)
Just reading your last post..
How do you square a deity who is okay with dragging a (possibly?!) unfaithful woman to drink some dirt, poop and blood cocktail which will destroy her reproductive organs and also any children in utero, but is firmly against all abortions?
Or is it like a divine potion that will only work if the woman was legitimately unfaithful? That is what you are saying, correct? The priest casts a spell (invocation) on the woman? I just cannot seem to wrap my head around how this is logically reconcilable. Or moral.
”Both of you are pushing your raw opinions as fact, without any factual support, either biblically, or rabbinically.
You have a poor track record of inferring intentions, in English. These are not my opinions. These are the opinions of people who are considered experts at interpreting the text in question. I think their interpretation is reasonable. I actually think you take greater liberties with your interpretation.”
Your thinking their interpretation is reasonable is your opinion. Their opinion is adopted as your opinion.
The issue is that I choose not to interpret. I choose to see what the actual original text says, ponder it, and then either claim to understand it or not to understand it.
”I personally disagree that life begins either at conception or at first breath. I've also provided substantial evidence that this IS the general consensus. Additionally, you can easily read a summary on Wikipedia.
I’m not actually interested in what people believe. I’m interested in what is true.
”They do agree that the fetus is not just meat, however, and must be protected. -You
Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.” -Quote
There are worlds of implication between what the quote consists of, and your statement. You choose your words quite selectively. Remember that pre-40 days they consider the fetus to be "mere water".
Actually not implication, omission. I forgot the 40 days of water. The tem meat referred to what someone else said, in misinterpreting you, and I should have made that clear.
Here’s a ponderable. One of the New Atheists, I forget who, defended Common Descent with this statement: all life comes from prior life. That statement is not arguable, and is not argued by theists who refer to human existence, and excepting only Adam and Jesus. What is being confused here, it seems to me, is life vs. the soul.
The scheme of life producing other life is the basic fundament of biology. Life is inherited; the individual endures a process of development and change from conception on. Any purposeful destruction breaks the biological chain of inheritance. This is just science. And individuals are dependent at various times of their lives. That doesn’t make them not individuals, or not “persons”.
”Similarly, I think your interpretation of biblical text is just as subjective as any other. The beauty and curse of poetic language is that it allows for such diversity of interpretation.
What baffles me is that people look to such poetry for moral guidance.”
Me too, and that is the problem here. Either the bible is literal or the bible is a general narrative with non-specific messages. It is a binary issue. Taking bible passages as proof for abortion is literalism gone astray – off into interpretationism.
(continued)
(from above)
”Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?
(I get an error when I try and log in with a name.)
So type it at the top of comment.
”Just reading your last post..
How do you square a deity who is okay with dragging a (possibly?!) unfaithful woman to drink some dirt, poop and blood cocktail which will destroy her reproductive organs and also any children in utero, but is firmly against all abortions?
Or is it like a divine potion that will only work if the woman was legitimately unfaithful? That is what you are saying, correct? The priest casts a spell (invocation) on the woman? I just cannot seem to wrap my head around how this is logically reconcilable. Or moral.”
First, I try to read to understand, not to judge.
IF there is a deity, and
IF this deity is accurately described in the text, and
IF I comprehend the actual meaning of the text,
THEN something of the nature of the deity is reveal for me to consider.
When considering the nature of the Judeo-Christian deity, I assume that the first two IF’s are true, and that comprehension is humanly possible, and that the text is not exclusive to specially designated humans and denied to the rest.
There is no way for me to know if the deity ever chose to act on a “curse”, or whether the threat of such a severe curse was sufficient to control infidelity. It is possible that the psychology of the “jealousy test” was that a guilty woman would fight it, while an innocent woman would accept it. (Pure speculation on my part, without any evidence to support it other than human nature).
As for the morality of the Judeo-Christian deity, the concept of the imposition of human morals onto a deity which made the humans and defined their moral principles for them is non sequitur. The potter/pot analog comes to mind: a potter expects coherence in his pottery; when a pot fails to be coherent (cracks during firing, for example), the potter could destroy it, violently, if that is his nature. Coherence in the potter does not imply following the rules of coherence he makes for the pot.
Further, when Atheists make moral charges against the Judeo-Christian deity, they impose their own self-created morals, fabricated under their own moral authority, onto a (non-existent) being. Since Atheism, Materialism, Atheist morals and Atheist intellectual processes are demonstrably non-coherent, their charges are without rational force.
And finally, if Atheists are charging immorality against an actual, creating deity who created them and holds sway over his creation, then they are asserting insanity.
Andrew says:
I choose to see what the actual original text says, ponder it, and then either claim to understand it or not to understand it.
One would commonly call this "interpretation".
Does it directly state that the fetus is fully human? It does not. You have interpreted that intention, and your interpretation is counter to the consensus of the experts. Yes, I agree that the rabbinical scholars interpretation seems more true to the actual text than your own. But I don't speak or read Hebrew, and have no expertise in interpreting the nuance of biblical text.
I’m not actually interested in what people believe. I’m interested in what is true.
Well, it is True that the consensus of the experts arrived at a different conclusion than yourself. It is also True that the conclusion you reach is not explicitly stated in the text.
Me too, and that is the problem here. Either the bible is literal or the bible is a general narrative with non-specific messages. It is a binary issue. Taking bible passages as proof for abortion is literalism gone astray – off into interpretationism.
I am further baffled. You read the bible in an attempt to understand the nature and will of the deity, but are baffled that people look to the bible for moral guidance? If you are correct, the corollary holds true as well, "Taking bible passages as proof against abortion is literalism gone astray – off into interpretationism."
IF this deity is accurately described in the text
This would make the text literal, which runs contrary to your previous statements.
First, I try to read to understand, not to judge.
It seems that you suspend your own moral authority to follow what you interpret the nature of the deity to be.
And finally, if Atheists are charging immorality against an actual, creating deity who created them and holds sway over his creation, then they are asserting insanity.
Why? If you discovered the Devil made you, would you similarly hold him above reproach? This seems an abdication of morality. Yet, according to you, anything else would be insanity. I would think to willingly follow the Devil based upon the simple rational that he created you is insanity. Well, perhaps more practical cowardice than insanity.
You didn't answer this, I am incredibly curious:
”Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?
Andrew,
”One would commonly call this "interpretation".”
Ah. So there are no facts; there exist only interpretations. So there is no way to actually “know” anything? That is the first step into Radical Skepticism.
”Yes, I agree that the rabbinical scholars interpretation seems more true to the actual text than your own.”
Again, since the scholars don’t agree on much of anything (if they did there would need be only one scholar), which scholar do you agree with? What is his interpretation? Why is it valid? You continue to reference non-specific persons and theories. What statement, from where and who do you agree with, and why?
”Well, it is True that the consensus of the experts arrived at a different conclusion than yourself. It is also True that the conclusion you reach is not explicitly stated in the text.”
That is absurd. The consensus you claim is against abortion except for triage situations. I agree with that, and do not agree that there is biblical justification for abortion as it is known today: birth control and eugenics of minorities.
My only conclusion stated here is the text does not justify abortion. And the text does not deny value to the fetus nor does it consider it water at any point, at least as far as anyone has shown. In shorter words, my conclusion concerns what is not in the text, yet is being claimed for the text.
”I am further baffled. You read the bible in an attempt to understand the nature and will of the deity, but are baffled that people look to the bible for moral guidance? If you are correct, the corollary holds true as well, "Taking bible passages as proof against abortion is literalism gone astray – off into interpretationism."”
Good Grief. I agreed with what you said about poetry, now you change the meaning to be something else. There is poetry within the bible, as well as many other literary devices. Much of the poetry describes the human condition, not moral precepts. You seem to disagree just to be disagreeing. And I described a process for maintaining the integrity of the text while also developing a metanarrative – and you attack that too. Explain how that offends your sense of rational inquiry.
It seems that your only position here is to claim agreement with unidentified rabbis who you seem to think approve of your position on abortion, a position which is not actually clear. Maybe you could quote bible verses which actually defend abortion on demand?
”And finally, if Atheists are charging immorality against an actual, creating deity who created them and holds sway over his creation, then they are asserting insanity.
Why? If you discovered the Devil made you, would you similarly hold him above reproach? This seems an abdication of morality. Yet, according to you, anything else would be insanity. I would think to willingly follow the Devil based upon the simple rational that he created you is insanity. Well, perhaps more practical cowardice than insanity.”
Holding your inverted analogy in abeyance for a moment, you ask “why?” Kindly re-visit the statement you are attacking. Is it rational to attack the actual, existing creator, by accusing him of immorality based on your own fabricated morals? If you answer yes, then that shows that you are not who you claim to be: you are an Atheist. That is because you consider your personally manufactured morals to be superior to the morality handed to humans by a power far superior to yourself. Hence you are superior to any deity. And since you are not God or a god, then there is no God or gods, because they are inferior to you and you are not a god or God.
If you answer no, then you have answered your own question.
Now to address your inversion attempt:
”Why? If you discovered the Devil made you, would you similarly hold him above reproach? This seems an abdication of morality. Yet, according to you, anything else would be insanity. I would think to willingly follow the Devil based upon the simple rational that he created you is insanity. Well, perhaps more practical cowardice than insanity.”
Given that, according to the bible, the Devil exists in an environment where morality is known, and is from God, not Satan (who is the anti-moralist), then why would anyone wanting morality as a part of his worldview choose to follow Satan? In that environment it is still clear who the deity is, and who is not the deity. The choice is still available: God’s morality or Satan’s hedonism. (unless your point is that if Satan made me, then I have no free will or choice in the matter, but that’s a different issue).
”Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?”
Would your opinion of pedophilia change if there were a direct and unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all sex with children?
Would your opinion change if there were a direct and unambiguous biblical quote banning any and all abortions? Except for triage?
If elimination of harm is a value (to humans), then the only way to justify abortion is to deny humanity to the fetus tautologically, so that it cannot be harmed no matter what is done to it: it cannot experience harm. There is a rational problem with that (even outside the false tautology): every human went through fetal development and had to survive it to get to the next stage. It is a part of the experience of being human. That must be denied if abortion is to be acceptable (to humans). The denial of humanity is irrational; it is logically obvious that a human, in a legitimate stage of development, is being denied the ability to continue the experience of human development. That is harm, being done to an innocent individual.
It is as if every pregnancy now is a triage situation, with the value of harms rated thus:
(a) It is harmful to a female to have to carry a fetus to full term.
(b) It is harmful to the fetus to have scissors thrust into its brain and be dismembered.
So the female is said to have the full moral and physical decision to accept harm (b) in order to avoid harm (a) to herself. The selfishness is apparent in that equation.
Further, All the students at Sandy Hook could have been legally killed with scissors 6 years ago merely because of their stage of development – without a peep from the population which is now enraged at guns.
So harm cannot be a coherent value if abortion is accepted, any more than child sacrifice, which is in essence the same thing, with the fetus now being sacrificed on the principle of choice and privacy, and in actuality the convenience of the mother for the most part.
Further, the subject of racial eugenics is never answered by the proponents of fetal death, yet it is precisely the focus on black communities where the highest density of abortion abattoirs are located. So racial eugenics is a value under “Choice”, although the facts of that will be denied despite the data (take it up with Dr Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece).
Dear Stan,
look up the meaning of the word "triage".
Thank you.
~Yours,
Aaaa
(You may correct your comments and delete this message if you will it.)
"There is a rational problem with that ... every human went through fetal development and had to survive it to get to the next stage. It is a part of the experience of being human. That must be denied if abortion is to be acceptable (to humans)."
Now a sperm is human? An ovum?
What do you think it means? I use it to describe the ever-present case of the "mother might die if the fetus isn't killed" scenario. Two victims, between which the Choice acvocates seem to think there is no opportunity to save both: the typical false dilemma. One must live and one must die.
That is triage: a choice must be made between two victims - which to save and which to choose death for.
If thoses cases actually exist, then they should be administered in a hospital, not an abortion clinic.
If a specific case is not triage, then it is elective abortion.
"If thoses cases actually exist,"
There's no "if" about it. They exist.
"There is a rational problem with that ... every human went through fetal development and had to survive it to get to the next stage. It is a part of the experience of being human. That must be denied if abortion is to be acceptable (to humans)."
My comment seems to have disappeared so I'll ask again.
An individual sperm? An ovum? These are also fully human to you?
An individual sperm does not produce life because there is no egg. An egg doesn't produce life because there is no sperm. The combination is required; this is fundamental grade school stuff so you know it. Life is transmitted to the progeny through the combination of sperm/egg, and a compatible uterine environment. So there is no reason to believe that the components themselves are life-giving because they do not do so individually. Why the combination and environment are required in order to transmit life are not known to me... maybe to yourself?
In fact the exact composition of life is not known, and some Atheists even deny that it, life, has an essence. this is an attempt to restrain life philosophically to a material entity. But it fails at death when no material is seen to leave the corpse, and also at conception, when nothing material called a "life" particle is inserted, yet the process of development of a living individual begins.
If you are suggesting that sperm and eggs are separate species of living things, they are not.
Sperm do not reproduce themselves; they are purely part of the reproductive system that produced them.
Eggs do not reproduce themselves: they are purely part of the reproductive system that produced them.
Here are some basic qualifications for life (Note1):
Capture, transduce, store, and call up energy for utilization (work),
Actively self-replicate and eventually reproduce, not just passively polymerize or crystallize; pass along the apparatus and "know-how" for homeostatic metabolism and reproduction into progeny,
Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture,
Develop and grow from immaturity to reproductive maturity,
Productively react to environmental stimuli. Respond in an efficacious manner that is supportive of survival, development, growth, and reproduction, and
Possess relative genetic stability, yet sufficient diversity to allow for adaptation and potential evolution.
Clearly eggs and sperm do not satisfy these characteristics of life.
Note 1: Much more information is found here:
http://lifeorigin.info/ including instructions on how you can win a million dollars by creating life yourself.
Well that is unfortunate that my post was deleted. I'll try and hit all the main points again. You've thrown out an awful lot which I think is irrelevant or grossly misinterprets my points. Apologizes for ignoring most of your misinterpretations but I would much like to focus on a few key points.
1) My initial response was in reaction to your criticism of Life's understanding of "actual Hebrew text". I had been under the impression that Judaism was fairly liberal in regards to abortion. I looked it up, and my memory was correct. There is no "only in triage" situations. In fact, in "triage" situations it is mandatory to preserve the life of the mother. The is a great deal more of course, but the information is easily obtainable. Suffice to say, "actual Hebrew scholars" disagree with your interpretation of the "actual Hebrew text".
The text does not directly prohibit abortion, does it? Thus any reading is subject to interpretation.
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
2) (unless your point is that if Satan made me, then I have no free will or choice in the matter, but that’s a different issue)
Yes, this is exactly what I had said. "If you discovered the Devil made you...". A being with the perceived morality of the Devil is the "creating entity".
I am really confused on how you could possibly have misinterpreted what I clearly stated. I really think this should be considered evidence that your interpretation of ancient Hebrew may be off as well.
3) ”Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?”
I cannot gather a straight answer from your reply. I simple Yes or No would be much clearer. I think you are saying no .. but I'll let you clarify before I expand.
4) I don't want to ignore your own direct question. Would your opinion of pedophilia change if there were a direct and unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all sex with children?
Would your opinion change if there were a direct and unambiguous biblical quote banning any and all abortions? Except for triage?
No, my opinion on these subjects in not grounded in biblical understanding.
Finally! Sperm and ovum are reproductive cells. A cell is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing. Sperm and ovum are alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)
This is fundamental grade school stuff. :)
”". I had been under the impression that Judaism was fairly liberal in regards to abortion. I looked it up, and my memory was correct. There is no "only in triage" situations. In fact, in "triage" situations it is mandatory to preserve the life of the mother. The is a great deal more of course, but the information is easily obtainable. Suffice to say, "actual Hebrew scholars" disagree with your interpretation of the "actual Hebrew text".”
This is annoyingly obtuse. (a) I point out the actual words contained in the original text, you deny their value because that is “interpreted”. (b) I give actual links which demonstrate that your claims regarding rabbinical “liberality” on abortion are false, and you ignore that and make specious claims without any links. (c) I ask for links to the original Hebrew text stating that the fetus is water; you ignore that. (d) you do not defend the actual words of the text as supporting unequivocally the killing of humans in the fetal stage: you cannot.
Your attacks on my interpretation are actually attacks on the original text, because I do not interpret it, I showed it in its raw form, its literal form, its English transliteration. It does not support your claims for abortion. You cannot claim that it does, without specious, undocumented claims regarding “actual Hebrew scholars” whom I have demonstrated to say otherwise in actual links.
And here is your worst attempt to justify biblical approval of abortion:
” The text does not directly prohibit abortion, does it? Thus any reading is subject to interpretation.”
The bible forbids killing.
You must interpret that injunction commandment to mean, “unless it is convenient to do so”.
”This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.”
This is an outrageous prevarication. I have demonstrated actual original text, and it does not say that. You can misinterpret for your own purposes all you wish, but you cannot say that “kills the fetus” is part of the original text without lying outright.
(continued below)
” Yes, this is exactly what I had said. "If you discovered the Devil made you...". A being with the perceived morality of the Devil is the "creating entity".
I am really confused on how you could possibly have misinterpreted what I clearly stated. I really think this should be considered evidence that your interpretation of ancient Hebrew may be off as well.
It is interesting that you clarified the statement with extra text in order to make your point that it could not possibly have meant the Satan of the Bible; rather it meant a different Satan, one which is actually God.
Interesting that your interpretation is always the one that is the only possible one.
And interesting that you do not address the uninterpreted text, and instead you refer to specious interpretations of undocumented experts.
And interesting that raw text is referred to as an "interpretation" which does not map onto the expert opinion, so that the expert opinion takes precedence over the actual, raw text.
And now there is this amazing statement:
” Would your opinion of pedophilia change if there were a direct and unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all sex with children?
Would your opinion change if there were a direct and unambiguous biblical quote banning any and all abortions? Except for triage?
No, my opinion on these subjects in not grounded in biblical understanding.”
So your morals are grounded in biblical “understanding” only when convenient, and the biblical text is to be rejected when it is inconvenient?
Interesting, since you fought so hard to create a non-existent “biblical understanding” to support your opinion on abortion.
Now let’s tackle sperm and egg. Sperm and egg both are biological dead ends in and of themselves. They do not reproduce themselves by cell-splitting as do ordinary cells. They carry instructions which are implemented in the fertilized egg, which is the basic unit of new life in humans, and within which the new life begins its development. I don’t know why this seems so hard, except that the facts seem to get in the way of ideological pursuits, specifically the desire to kill humans at this stage.
BTW, a fertilized egg is not “water” by any stretch of the imagination. There is no biblical, scientific, or rational reason to make that claim. The only reason is ideological rationalization.
In summary, you don’t actually base your morals on biblical text unless you can force an ideologically compatible meaning onto the text which is not actually there; otherwise, if the text is explicitly against your desires then you ignore it, so the entire conversation has been a waste of time.
A complete waste of time.
A complete waste of time.
Apparently since I've repeatedly and clearly explained myself and you simply refuse to accept any information that isn't already in your head.
Yes, you quote the actual biblical text, but it doesn't explicitly state a fetus is equivalent to a birthed human life. DOES IT? I have pointed this out MULTIPLE times. You interpret it to mean what you've already concluded.
For like the 5th time. This is not MY opinion. This is the EASILY RESEARCHED INTERPRETATION OF RABBINICAL SCHOLARS. I think you are ALL wrong.
AGAIN! THIS IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION.
Shall I say it AGAIN??? 7th time the charm?
You have NO CLUE, NO CLUE what I think. It is INCREDIBLY irritating to have someone else tell you what you think.
Do you accept that this is the dominant interpretation by rabbinical scholars? YES OR NO. Note 1.
2) It is interesting that you clarified the statement with extra text in order to make your point that it could not possibly have meant the Satan of the Bible; rather it meant a different Satan, one which is actually God.
Clarified because you obviously (somehow?) misinterpreted my intention. I note you still don't answer the question. Shall I clarify once more?
"God" has the perceived (im)morality of Satan of the Bible. However in THIS narrative, Satan of the Bible is the originating creating entity. Jehovah of the Bible is NOT. He was cast from Satan's (original creating entity) sight for rebellion. Do you need more back story/clarification?
Is it insanity to denounce "God" as immoral? Yes OR No.
3) ”Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?”
YES OR NO
You criticize me for not providing a stream of (easily Googled) citations but cannot simply answer Yes or No.
So your morals are grounded in biblical “understanding” only when convenient, and the biblical text is to be rejected when it is inconvenient?
...
No. My morality is not grounded in the bible. Period.
4) A solitary human male is a biological dead end as well. It would be nonsense by any view to claim he was not alive. Cells are alive. A sperm is a cell. Sperm are alive. It's elementary biology regardless of your stance on abortion.
Do you accept that an individual cell is alive? YES OR NO.
BTW, a fertilized egg is not “water” by any stretch of the imagination.
No shit? NOT MY VIEW.
Okay? There are four questions and you can simply respond with ONE word for each question. Feel free to extrapolate or clarify but PLEASE include YES OR NO because I cannot otherwise interpret your answer. If you can't simply include Yes or No then please stop wasting both our times.
The bible forbids killing.
Bullshit. The bible clearly and unambiguously endorses killing multiple times.
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder[13]
Adultery[13]
Bestiality[14]
Rape [15]
Sodomy [16]
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law. (Numbers 15:32–36)
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped[17]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[18]
Worshiping other gods[19][20]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name[21]
Cursing a parent[22][23][24]
Kidnapping[25]
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.
~Jesus "The Prince of Peace" Christ
Do you still think the Bible forbids killing? Yes or No?
Five questions now. Five words. Easy peasy.
Note 1
Here are your damn links. It's practically the entire first half page of a google search.
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=44
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/preemb.html
I'm freaked out by Stan thinking that sperm isn't alive and fetuses breath in the womb and there is never times where pregnancy threatens to kill the woman.
This will be my last conversation with you. Your distortions prove that you are not looking for any realistic guidance from the bible, and that you will distort any text language whatsoever to try to fabricate evidence for your case. You denied that you are an Atheist; I believe that to be another fabrication.
” Yes, you quote the actual biblical text, but it doesn't explicitly state a fetus is equivalent to a birthed human life. DOES IT? I have pointed this out MULTIPLE times. You interpret it to mean what you've already concluded.
Nor does the text claim that a fetus is not equivalent to a birthed human being. You added that yourself to the raw text. And your own sources below say that the Rabbis and Poskim disagree on almost all points of the Law. And the fact that you agree with and defer to their (confused) opinion(s) means that you also accept that for the first 40 days the embryo is water – despite your objection.
More to the point, it makes no difference what the Torah, or the bible in general says, does it? You don’t care what it says, so long as you can make it seem to say what you want it to say. For example, it does not explicitly say that 37.45 year old males are fully persons… so what does that tell you?
” Do you accept that this is the dominant interpretation by rabbinical scholars? YES OR NO. Note 1.
It is perfectly not clear that there is a dominant interpretation, except here:
”The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder. There iseven disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.”
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html
Let’s recapitulate: wanton abortion on demand for personal convenience is not a “very compelling reason to allow for abortion”. Except maybe to you.
”Is it insanity to denounce "God" as immoral? Yes OR No.”
Under the redefinition of God as being the evil Satan-the-creator, Yes. Even from a practical standpoint, where you are not god, you have no actual morals other than those prefabricated by yourself, or those handed to you by Satan-the-creator. You have no moral basis by which to judge, and there is no reason to think that you would have some saintly morality in a universe which is totally irrational, non-coherent, and evilly disposed toward human existence. This is because you likely would not even exist in a Satan-driven universe, and if you did you would be amoral and irrational and insane already.
”3) ”Would your opinion on abortion actually change if there was a direct & unambiguous biblical quote legitimizing any and all abortions?”
YES OR NO
You criticize me for not providing a stream of (easily Googled) citations but cannot simply answer Yes or No.”
No, for the reasons and explanation which I gave, and which you apparently cannot comprehend: the principle of harm, which is a main thrust of the bible. That inverted moral principle you give would force the bible to become internally contradictory and thus non-coherent, rendering the bible no longer viable. If you destroy the bible, it is no longer a moral source.
I have to go; I’ll answer the rest of your questions later.
You, Anonymous, you'd go a lot further if you just said what you think, but you'd rather hide behind your interpretation shopped quotes.
There are Hebrew scholars going back to the 2nd Century BCE that interpret that Exodus 21:22 refer more to the offspring than the woman. The text seems to suggest this. Now, you can jump up and down and tell me I'm wrong to challenge "consensus" but I don't really care. Exodus 21:22 doesn't even come close to settling the matter of abortion anyway.
You are free to believe abortion is the purest human pursuit imaginable. If you think cramming a medical instrument into an infant’s head and scrambling its brains around is fine, then go on believing that. Some people think it’s immoral of me to hunt deer. I happen to disagree.
Except in rare cases, abortion is a selfish act. At 20 weeks that is a micro-baby, I've seen my daughters ultra-sound. At 30 weeks she was kicking things off my wife's belly that were placed in different positions. She was exhibiting will, she was exhibiting the personality she has out of the womb.
Since you want to ask pointed questions, maybe you can answer one, when is that a baby? The day it comes out, what if it’s a week late like my daughter? If the day off, then week before, two weeks before? Would it be okay with you if the mother had the right to have the child euthanized the day of?
I'd love to see you speak for yourself for once, and maybe mount a cogent argument for you own beliefs.
I appreciate you actually asking what my views are instead of ascribing them to me.
Let's just clear up a couple things.
I have distorted nothing. Copy-paste and Google searches are not distortion. I have edited nothing but to italicize quotes. If google search a copy-paste of whatever quote your issue is with, you'll find the originating site. It is almost certainly in the top-5 results.
I have neither affirmed nor denied any theological position.
I have only deferred to the authority of the rabbinical sages for their interpretation of the language, not as a moral authority. Your quote with bolded emphasis is completely irrelevant in the conclusion of the interpretation. How you think it actually proves some point of yours I cannot fathom.
... I'm sorry. I thought I was replying to Stan... Oh well, it's still relevant.
Now, you can jump up and down and tell me I'm wrong to challenge "consensus" but I don't really care.
I never said you were wrong to challenge it. I just wanted to point out that Life's interpretation cannot be just casually dismissed as "you haven't read the original Hebrew text". And WOW look at the result.
Sorry Rika, I actually have to run. I'll respond this way. My son is almost 7 months old. He means the world to me. I have his ultrasound at 12 and 22 weeks on my fridge.
Anonymous,
I am terminating this conversation unequivocally, because you are dishonest, intellectually and morally.
You are an internet fraud and an intellectual/moral relativist who has masqueraded as caring about what the Pentateuch says about the value of a fetus and the killing of that fetus.
In reality you are merely intent upon raping the meaning contained in the original text in the pursuit of your own non-Judeo-Christian, relativist, Atheist ideology. Your purposeful corruption is intended to create a false “understanding” as an attack on Judeo-Christian arguments regarding abortion, an attack which you think can be mustered through your false representation of the text. Your actual opinion of the bible is revealed in your recent comments, and that confirms the fraudulence of your prior comments where you pretended to care: you have now admitted that you don’t care what the Pentateuch says.
You have posed as something which you aren’t and have been revealed to be a fraud. It is clear that you are an Atheist activist poseur, and a transparent failure at that pursuit. You have attempted to corrupt the bible by inserting your own meanings, even claiming a non-existent Rabbinical consensus for your desired conclusion that abortion is AOK because the fetus is not fully human. And that claim is made fully in the face of evidence that that is false.
I will no longer respond to your comments, and if you persist in your demonstrably false claims and misrepresentation of yourself and your actual ideology, you will be removed, as all trolls ultimately are.
Adios.
"you will be removed, as all trolls ultimately are"
What about Steven Satak?
You are standing in a lab in a fertility clinic. It is on fire and the fire is very near the oxygen tanks. There is a large cooler with 5 frozen fertilized eggs in it, with adequate power etc to maintain the eggs. Next to the cooler is a 3 yr old child, unconscious. Which do you carry out?
The fact that the majority of the abortion debate centers around the question of whether or not the fetus is alive shows how successful the right has been in shaping this argument.
The right poses this question, along with an unspoken addendum: "If it is alive, that means it qualifies as a "human life", and an abortion would be indistinguishable from murder."
When liberals hear this question, they instinctively want to respond "No, the fetus isn't alive, so an abortion does not constitute a killing." But this concedes the important part of the argument: if the fetus is biologically alive, that means it qualifies as a "human life". Male sperm is the easy counterpoint here - also biologically alive, but not a human life. (Anyone who tells you that sperm isn't alive is ignorant).
By conceding this point, the entire debate is had on the right's terms. Now liberals are in the position of needing to prove that either: (a) the fetus is in some wierd pre-life state, or; (b) murder laws should have an exception for fetuses.
Instead the argument could be that yes, the fetus is alive, but our society allows for the destruction of some forms of life all the time. We have traditionally drawn the line at "human life", but with considerable exceptions. This principle of preserving life must compete with other principles, including that of individual self-determination. In my opinion it yields to that latter principle here.
Now back to the "government enforced birth brigade" VS "baby-killing atheists" arguing about primitive authors ideas about person-hood.
Rod T. said,
"You are standing in a lab in a fertility clinic. It is on fire and the fire is very near the oxygen tanks. There is a large cooler with 5 frozen fertilized eggs in it, with adequate power etc to maintain the eggs. Next to the cooler is a 3 yr old child, unconscious. Which do you carry out? "
False dichotomy Rod. I would grab both (and I am big enough to do it: liquid nitrogen coolers are not that large). These moral "dichotomies" are rarely if ever actual dichotomies. They are designed to force moral relativity where it doesn't actually exist. In other words, they are dishonest.
Rod T. said...
”Male sperm is the easy counterpoint here - also biologically alive, but not a human life. (Anyone who tells you that sperm isn't alive is ignorant).”
Very clumsy job of Poisoning The Well, Rod.
The fact is that sperm is more akin to a drone than it is to a reproducing, non-entropic cell demonstrates the fatal defect in the perpetual Leftist quest to kill their progeny. Both sperm and egg are launched with a load of fuel and a singular purpose; when the fuel supply runs out they do not seek fuel, they die. They are purely entropic, as opposed to normal cells which are not. Not only do they not reproduce and are not produced by other sperm/egg cells, they do not self-repair or do other functions that are normal to all living cells. Their death is assured by their statistically arranged missions, where the egg and sperm might not ever meet and their deaths are assured by their inability to self-repair. They are one-shot bullets, animated and dying entropicially as they are emitted.
”By conceding this point, the entire debate is had on the right's terms. Now liberals are in the position of needing to prove that either: (a) the fetus is in some wierd pre-life state, or; (b) murder laws should have an exception for fetuses.”
By which you admit that the idea of fetal life is not important to the AtheoLeft.
”Instead the argument could be that yes, the fetus is alive, but our society allows for the destruction of some forms of life all the time. We have traditionally drawn the line at "human life", but with considerable exceptions. This principle of preserving life must compete with other principles, including that of individual self-determination. In my opinion it yields to that latter principle here.”
This argument presupposes that the fetus has no “self”, and therefore has no right to self-determination. That is an imaginary principle, based on ideology alone. It is actually the government enforced principle of “kill your progeny at will and without consequence” of which the AtheoLeft is so enamored.
”Now back to the "government enforced birth brigade" VS "baby-killing atheists" arguing about primitive authors ideas about person-hood.”
That argument is done. It's always rather astonishing how callously the scissors-through-the-skull brigade regards the inequality of birthing vs. killing. What it means is that the right to decide (a) who is an actual person, and (b) who lives and dies, lives in the hearts of the Left, those who make up their own morals.
Well well Stan. How very brave of you to assign me a position and then condemn me based on your imagination.
I am dishonest? You quote passages and insist they are in line with your will, when the actual text is at best incredibly ambiguous.
You blast my interpretation as somehow condoning abortion, when I've clearly stated I couldn't care less of the bible's position of abortion.
You dismiss all the links provided because there are some rabbi who disagree. And laughably claim I edited them to strengthen my position. Please, everyone, just fucking google Judaism and Abortion. I have misrepresented nothing.
I never said that abortion was AOK nor claimed that was the rabbinical position.
I never claimed to be a theist, nor an atheist. You never asked.
You simply dismiss me, as you did Life, as trolls because we disagree with your interpretation of an ancient text.
In short, you only attack straw man.
You Stan, have no moral compass. You are a moral child who strives to obey the parent on the sole basis that they are the parent.
You admit you don't care what the bible says regarding abortion. Your mind is closed to change because you cling to your beliefs on a purely emotional level.
You have don't even have a grade school level understanding of biology.
But really? I suspect you want to end this conversation now because you cannot face how irrevocably incoherent your precious bible is, forbidding murder on page 8, and encouraging it dozens of times on successive pages.
Let me imagine your response: It's AOK because God said so.
Sad. You blog title claims it promotes reason, yet all I see are fallacies, emotional arguments, stonewalling, poisoning the well, straw man attacks, false dichotomies and a plethora of cognitive dissonance.
" Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg. "
Carl Sagan
Well,
I'll introduce myself as a former skeptic/atheist for the people who do not know my botched writing style.
You see, abiding for philosophical materialism has some sort of a psychological appeal. Totally agreeing by a Philosophically materialistic view, implies that everything we need to know is directly observable. Not controlling such, may lead to grasp a limited worldview regarding different segments of reality, and an excessively reductionistic view of reality becomes an everyday's motto, leading to the formulation of false conclusions, which lead to false assumptions.
So, what happens next?
An egomaniac cult of the self, which is the opposite of what it is intended within the use of reason. This is what most spiritually-orientated religions call as EGO.
Absolutes should be defined as principles, and relatives should be defined as references, and how they compare as such, regarding any given principle. When such are correctly defined, in some cases, even both absolute and relative, are possible.
When people say they have no moral absolutes, is because they fail, or do not have the will to define those as absolute, even when moral absolutes may be experientially correct and may be applied to the definition and context where such were posited.
So, people get heated and self-righteous, and this is what Stan (although I do not agree 100% with him), is criticizing, with good reasons.
Another big problem I see with the huge appeal regarding philosophical materialism, is that there's a lack of differentiation between cultural aspects which permeate into religions, and their commonalities regarding the spiritual view, without resorting to mere religious pluralism.
This is a common problem among some materialistic philosophers, though. They dislike the lack of contingency anywhere. They ignore the mystical experiences as such, because of their misunderstanding about how such for them, have any "fuzzy air of pseudo-contingency", and confusing such tirades with, what could be called by them, mere idealism.
So, because the spiritual does not exist, then what is left for some skeptics/physicalists? attack the different cultural aspects of religions and attack all of them with a self-entitled self-righteousness and pure EGO!!
Kind Regards.
"Rod T. said,
"You are standing in a lab in a fertility clinic. It is on fire and the fire is very near the oxygen tanks. There is a large cooler with 5 frozen fertilized eggs in it, with adequate power etc to maintain the eggs. Next to the cooler is a 3 yr old child, unconscious. Which do you carry out? "
False dichotomy Rod. I would grab both (and I am big enough to do it: liquid nitrogen coolers are not that large). These moral "dichotomies" are rarely if ever actual dichotomies. They are designed to force moral relativity where it doesn't actually exist. In other words, they are dishonest."
Ha ha ha! :-) I went through the same thinking with my child today at the white elephant.
"Okay kiddo, you want two things. Each thing costs one pound. You have one pound. Which one will you buy?"
"Both!"
"You only have one pound so you can only buy one. Which one do you want?"
"I'll buy both!"
"..."
Back to the fertility clinic. It's not dishonest. It's a test to see if you -really- consider a fertilised egg equivalent to a baby. The fact that you can't even consider such a situation, even hypothetically in your mind, should tell you something about yourself.
By the way, you forgot to maintain power to the cooler. Those ten fertilised eggs, sorry "babies" are dead. You killed them. Great going!
And sperm is alive. Get a microscope and see for yourself.
Action UK,
That's silly. First off, liquid nitrogen does not stop existing just because the power is off. That's how embryos are stored: in closed tanks of ligud nitrogen. The tank gets plugged back in, and all is well.
And the false dichotomy shows exactly what I think, which is that (a) the values are equal, despite the dishonest attempt to force an inequality decision; and (b) The forcing of an unecessary decision is intellectually dishonest. To accept such a challenge and buckle to the pressure of an intellectually dishonest "dichotomy" is a failure of the subject, who is too weak to resist such things. That's what it tells me about you.
Sperm is alive in terms of motility, similar to a drone being alive because it moves; but it fails the definition of life as reproductive, non-entropic, self-sustaining metabolism, etc. etc; it is not the same as regular cell life though, and your "test" is to look at motion - only: a primitive and incomplete definition process regarding what constitutes life, probably induced not by objectively regarding the full characteristics of the sperm as they map onto the necessary characteristics of a living thing, but by applying the necessity of ideology.
I should probably explain the differences between your analog and a false dichotomy.
In your analog there are only two choices: buy one thing, or buy nothing. This you confused with an illegal choice: buy both. Both is not an option.
In the moral dilemma false dichotomy there are four choices:
1. Save neither one.
2. Save the embryos but not the child.
3. Save the child but not the embryos.
4. Save both child and embryos.
The moral questioner pretends that only choices 2 and 3 exist, in the attempt to force the subject to make a moral differentiation between the two. It is a false forcing of an unnecessary moral judgment, usually in the attempt to demonstrate that morals are relative. But that is intellectually dishonest because there are actually the unstated choices which can change that conclusion.
To claim that it is dishonest to refuse to consider the limited choices is a false claim. And it is ideologically motivated.
I just made a comment that blogger seems to have misplaced.
The main two points of it were:
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Considering sperm's life cycle from spermatocyte-->spermatids-->sperm what characteristics are missing?
and the second point was that point of the thought exercises was to think. You avoided thinking about the exercise.
In the moral dilemma false dichotomy there are four choices:
1. Save neither one.
2. Save the embryos but not the child.
3. Save the child but not the embryos.
4. Save both child and embryos.
5. Put out fire.
6. Put child on unicorn and carry out fertilized eggs.
7. Rewind time and fertilize the eggs and only rescue child.
8. Wake the child and teach him fire-fighting skills.
Using imagination to avoid thinking about morality is fun.
You don't need to ban me, I'll ban myself. See ya, Stan, the real world is trickier than your imagination sometimes you just can't avoid moral issues like you want to here.
@not my real name: Now that gave a chuckle. Reduced to making stuff up (including the unicorn - you just wouldn't be an indignant atheist without that or an FSM or two), you insult Stan while you are in the very act of commiting "suicide" under your current name - by voluntarily checking yourself out.
Suicide: the ultimate expression of the narcissist. If he can't have it his way, he won't have it at all.
Of course, your kind never stays away long. Fish gotta swim, trolls gotta... well, you know what I mean. You'll pick another 'nym to hide behind and take another shot in a day or two.
I don't mind that you are a fuddled atheist, but I cannot abide a coward.
Action UK,
The primary function of life is self-reproduction. Richard Dawkins described the advent of life as the progression of molecular replicators, which came first, through a transition which resembled a miracle but of course was not because there are no miracles, into life.
Neither sperm nor eggs perform even meiosis or mitosis which is the basic cell splitting self replication. So by themselves they are biological dead ends. Even viruses reproduce more viruses.
As for thinking, its odd that an analysis using a logical differentiation of the artificially severed question doesn't serve as "thinking" in your world. What you want is not thinking, it is submission to the presumption of personal authority to designate values to differing types of human life. Submission will allow you to claim that valuing differing types of human life is a necessity, and that you personally have the moral authority to do so, at will.
So of course the demonstration that your test is irrational under the rules of logical analysis is declared to be "not thinking" - a pejorative attempt to discredit it.
One-shot drive-by said,
"Using imagination to avoid thinking about morality is fun."
This says volumes about the Atheist mindset. Logic is declared to be "imaginary", and ridicule is thinking. The rational inversion of Atheism is fully illuminated.
I forgot to make this point, which is a logical principle: trying to answer a fallacy within the parameters of the fallacy will produce only fallacious answers.
Trying to deduce the process of prestidigitation within the parameters of the appearance provided by the prestidigitator will lead to false conclusions regarding the actual illusion. Deduction requires analysis outside the trick itself, if one is to comprehend the trick.
That goes for trick questions as well.
Demanding that a person answer the fallacious question "when did you stop beating your wife?" is an illegitimate demand, rationally. The demand is made from an ideological standpoint only: i.e. it is an emotional need to support a presupposed conclusion. Rationalization is not rational.
Just one more thing:
The least rational of all "thinking" is to be duped by your own trickery.
In book I of Plato's Republic Cephalus (I believe) says it is always good to return what is borrowed. Socrates asked if it was good to return a borrowed weapon to someone in a murderous rage.
This started a dialogue about repaying one's debts and protecting others from harm. This dialogue would have been avoided if the philosophers called Socrates' "artificially severed question" "deceitful" and refused to answer it by inventing a third choice a-la-Stan "I talk him out of his rage!" (AKA the unicorn option).
What you refused to answer was called an ethical dilemma. If you ever wish to study moral philosophy, you should get used to thinking about them because they play a central role in debates.
What you call moral philosophy I call ridiculous analogies or Reductio ad absurdum. We can play the what if game all day long. What if you found and unconscious 3 year old girl and unconscious 3 year old boy, which would you choose to save? You can't save both. You might give me an answer, but it is a ridiculous analogy.
What I've yet to see answered here by anyone playing at "moral philosophy" is when they believe it is no longer okay to kill the unborn. Is it a week before, two week, two months? Or do you believe as some Oxford "ethicists" have concluded that infants have no moral relevancy and therefor terminating their life is no different from abortion. At least they had the balls to carry their argument to its logical conclusion.
So, oh wise ones, please tell me when 'life' does being, because I'm anxious to know.
"So, oh wise ones, please tell me when 'life' does being, because I'm anxious to know."
" Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg. "
Carl Sagan
"We can play the what if game all day long."
Welcome to moral philosophy.
"You can't save both."
Ethical dilemmas are meant to put TWO moral principles in conflict. I suppose you could ask this question to different cultures and see if their answers differ but it is not a ethical dilemma in the Moral Philosophy sense.
Carl Sagan, if he were alive today, is one of the last persons to whom I would trust my life. Moral relativism produces distrust due to untrustworthy beliefs.
Why doesn't it surprise me that Stan goes straight to ad hominem to stop himself having to think about what the man said?
What Sagan said, he said without presenting any evidence whatsoever:
"Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg."
There is nothing there to discuss. Sagan is asserting no premises, only conclusions absent premises. He does that a lot.
What is being asserted by the publication of Sagan's rhetoric is merely Sagan's fame: Appeal To Authority. In this case, faux authority asserting religious-type principles without evidence or even principled argument.
That Stunned is impressed by Sagan's lack of principled argmentation, is not surprising. It is the conclusion which is important to the religiously denialist, not any semblence of interest in truth.
I failed to point out Sagan's discontinuity:
(a) "Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago."
(b) "They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg."
Either they are part of the unbroken chain of human life, or the chain is broken. The assertion of who is and is not a "human being" is part of the assement of value to stages of human life which is endemic to the self-endowed elites who are self-endowed with the right to decide which humans can live and which can die.
That is what makes Sagan and the morally superior AtheoLeft elites dangerous. I guess I have to point this out daily. At least for Stunned.
Also, this is the standard Atheist intellectual process: conclusion drawn without premises; refusal to provide premises for conclusion. Defensive of the right not to provide premises for conclusion.
Example of Atheist intellectual process:
(a) Conclusion: All theist arguments are false.
(b) Premise for conclusion: We don't need no stinking premises.
In more rigorous terms:
IF [We don't need no stinking premises], THEN [All theist arguments are false];
[We don't need no stinking premises];
Therefore, [All theist arguments are false].
QED.
This is the basis for the Atheist claim to being based in Rationality and Evidence: Neither is required in order to become an Atheist, nor to defend the Atheist religious denialism, nor to attack principled arguments.
"That Stunned is impressed by Sagan's lack of principled argmentation, is not surprising."
Remember when Pubalco described how you often make Fundamental Attribution Errors (Correspondence Bias) when explaining the motivations of others?
"Either they are part of the unbroken chain of human life, or the chain is broken."
He said "life" not "human life". Sperm is alive. The chain is unbroken.
"self-endowed elites who are self-endowed with the right to decide which humans can live and which can die."
And you say this as if YOU haven't decided who can live and who can die.
Stunned,
Read what he wrote again: I merely copied it. You misread it.
Your lack of arguments for any Atheist principles, and your constant word chopping juvenile criticism indicates that you have no original thoughts, and hence are continually "stunned".
"And you say this as if YOU haven't decided who can live and who can die."
And you *Erroneously Attribute* this to me based merely on your prejudice, not based on fact. If you had fact you would produce it. But like all Atheist theory, there exists no factual evidence to back it up. There is only sarcasm and fallacy and ideological conclusions wanting premises which do not exist: irrationality.
"And you *Erroneously Attribute* this to me based merely on your prejudice, not based on fact."
Hey, just because your decisions of who can live and who can die is different doesn't mean you haven't decided.
In your last reply to me, you stated:"Neither sperm nor eggs perform even meiosis or mitosis which is the basic cell splitting self replication." (emphasis mine)
*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Have you made an argument that relies on sperm not being alive? I honestly don't know why.
Stunned,
Your comments have dropped into the dark depths of absurdity. You have no idea what I believe. Your cheap shots are a waste of my time.
Action UK,
From your own reference:
”Spermatogenesis is the process by which male primordial germ cells called spermatogonia undergo meiosis, and produce a number of cells termed spermatozoa. The initial cells in this pathway are called primary spermatocytes. The primary spermatocyte divides into two secondary spermatocytes; each secondary spermatocyte then divides into two spermatids. These develop into mature spermatozoa, also known as sperm cells."
Sperm cells DO NOT undergo meiosis: they are the end product of a pathway of development which does NOT start with sperm cells, it starts with spermatogonia, which are the gametogonia produced by the reproductive poprtion of the human body. Sperm cells DO NOT reproduce themselves. They are terminal products.
You obviously did not read or comprehend your own reference.
”Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Have you made an argument that relies on sperm not being alive? I honestly don't know why.”
You are insistently producing false claims; When I am wrong I have admitted it. Now it is your turn. I repeat: Neither sperm nor eggs reproduce themselves using either meiosis or mitosis. You are merely pissing up a rope.
It is a common AtheoLeftist Pro-fetal-killing argument to claim that, since it is OK to kill eggs and sperm (their moral presupposition) that it is also OK to kill embryos at whatever stage they claim to be OK. Their claim is that sperm and egg are the same thing as a fertilized, growing embryonic human; therefore it is OK to kill the human which is the same as just a sperm or just an egg.
This is not new, nor is it complicated. It is false on the face of it. But the elitist anti-rational fight against the living human never ceases. The pursuit of death and killing is endemic within AtheoLeftism, due to the elitist, morally undisciplined, and yet morally superior self-image which Atheism produces in Atheists.
Provide a disciplined deduction that this is not so.
Stan, can I ask you why biologists think sperm is alive? Have they been brainwashed by Big Abortion?
Sandy,
The issue is not whether sperm is alive; the issue is whether it is definable as being an individuated human being.
You'll have to ask the biologists what they think of that.
Just like a seed (a living thing) uses a tree to make more seeds, spermatozoön makes creatures to make more spermatozoön. Therefore spermatozoön has all seven characteristics of life (when you only need most to be considered alive. Biologists are right and Stan is wrong - spermatozoön is alive. We've know it for hundreds of years (Van Leeuwenhoek). Things are either living, inanimate or dead. If Stan thinks spermatozoön is somehow inanimate then he should explain the mechanisms that turns this "inanimate" material into life. If the mechanism is supernatural then he should explain why the supernatural explanation should be considered more valid then our own observation and experimentation.
What is strange is that for some time the Catholic church was using the fact that sperm is alive to argue against fornication and non-productive sex.
I repeat:
The issue is not whether sperm is alive. The issue is whether sperm is an individuated human being.
(Animation does not prove separate life: clouds, streams, gases, electrons are mobile and have motion provided by entropic use of avilable energy, just as does a sperm, which neither seeks nor gathers energy but uses the energy endemic to it. For a complete list of necessary and sufficient elements of life, go here:
http://lifeorigin.info/).
A new human being does not exist in a sperm; a sperm is biologically a DNA replica extension of the host which formed it. It no more contains a new human life than do skin cells.
The philosophical argument from the supporters of fetal killing is that because it is acceptable to kill sperm and eggs (their presupposition, under their moral authority), then it is also acceptable to kill the fetus... because there is no difference between a sperm and a fetus, or an egg and a fetus. That is physically incorrect, because neither egg nor sperm contain an individuated human; a fertilized egg does contain a new human at the fetal stage of human development.
As for your own observation and experimentation, any observation that a sperm is a new, differentiated, individuated creature is wrong; you should observe again: it contains the DNA of the creature which launched it and it is part of that creature which is loosed in search of procreative opportunity. But it does not directly reproduce more sperm, because the DNA it carries is for an entire creature as describes the host which emitted it; and it reproduces not a replica of itself, it provides its DNA to be split in order to create a new creature, with new DNA which is not that of the sperm, and which new creature might not even carry sperm, if it is female.
The philosophical argument attempting to support the killing of fetuses is not supported by calling the sperm "alive"; the life in a sperm is nothing more than an extension of the existing host, and killing a sperm does not kill a new human.
The "Choice" to kill a fetus does, in fact, kill a new, individuated human at a normal stage of human development. The decision to kill a human at any stage of development is an arrogation of moral authority to the self. Supporting that arrogation is to support elitist faux moral authority over other humans which includes their death. This is the definition of tyranny.
That the AtheoLeft wishes to submerge this characteristic of their worldview in specious argumentation and rhetoric is an indicator of how dangerous Atheism actually is.
When the rabid support of abortion is coupled with Singer's approval of post-natal abortion and with Emmanuel's chart of human value (and lack thereof), and with Sanger's Planned Parenthood's focus on minority depletion, there emerges a trend toward eugenics which has never actually left the Left. When they cry "Progress" and "Change", without declaring "toward what", one can surmise toward what.
BTW, the seed produced by a tree is not analogous to a sperm; it is analogous to a fertilized egg. Pollen is analogous to sperm.
And Oh yes: What the Catholic Church thinks is of no concern here.
What is of concern are logical deductive conclusions based on grounded premises. Those are claimed by Atheists, yet are fatal to Atheism when they are used under disciplined analysis.
The issue is not whether sperm is alive.
That actually IS the issue that has dominated a substantial portion of the comments.
Attempting to shift the goal posts and drowning the dialogue in straw men assertions merely reinforces your inability to concede an elementary fact of biology that has been repeatedly clarified.
How can you possibly think to have a reasoned conversation if you cannot stand to be corrected on such a basic definition.
Also, a fetus would not meet the definition of "alive" that you have provided.
"just as does a sperm, which neither seeks nor gathers energy but uses the energy endemic to it."
Sperm metabolises fructose from the seminal fluid to gather energy. This takes place in the mitochondria located in the sperm's midpiece (at the base of the sperm head).
"spermatozoön is alive"
I like that you used the full name for a single mature and alive sperm. It literally mean "living seed".
"Pollen is analogous to sperm."
Pollen is alive.
Jarzen, D.M. & Nichols,D.J. 1996. Chapter 9 Pollen. In: Jansonius, J. & McGregor, D.C. (eds.)
Andrew,
I will answer your main charge in a second post.
As for defining a fetus under the same characteristics of life, which characteristics does it fail? You make an unsubstantiated charge with no basis for believing it. Another conclusion without premises, which Atheists seem to favor.
Here’s a recap, which seems necessary due to the false claims which are being made:
This discussion has been all over the place. Different Atheists presented different arguments, including that life = breath. Stunned even defended that argument while also disagreeing with it. Then we had the Atheist pretending to care what the bible said and trying to pervert the text to support the devaluation of the fetus as a human life form. Then came the false dilemma attempt to force the valuation of one human over another.
Then came the sperm issue, to which I said,
”If you are suggesting that sperm and eggs are separate species of living things, they are not.
Sperm do not reproduce themselves; they are purely part of the reproductive system that produced them.
Eggs do not reproduce themselves: they are purely part of the reproductive system that produced them.”
This has not been refuted: sperm are not separate species of living things; they are as much a product of the host organism as are skin cells, only they do not reproduce themselves.
Then I provided necessary and sufficient properties of independent life, and showed that neither sperm nor egg satisfy those conditions.
Then Stunned hysterically declared “I'm freaked out by Stan thinking that sperm isn't alive and fetuses breath in the womb and there is never times where pregnancy threatens to kill the woman.”
None of which is true, all of which are lies. I have never taken
(a) Sperm is alive in a sense lesser than skin cells, which do reproduce themselves, while sperm does not. Sperm is an extension of the host, carrying the host’s DNA; it is not a separate life or species.
(b) Fetuses perform breathing exercises in the womb, breathing in amniotic fluid.
(c) The pregnancies which threaten to kill the woman should be treated as triage situations, where both fetus and mother should be saved whenever possible. This should not be done in an abortion abattoir; it should be done in a full service hospital which cares about saving lives rather than killing.
I don’t believe that I have said anything which contradicts any of these statements.
(more below)
Then Rod T said this, agreeing with me:
”Male sperm is the easy counterpoint here - also biologically alive, but not a human life. (Anyone who tells you that sperm isn't alive is ignorant).”
Then my comment:
”The fact is that sperm is more akin to a drone than it is to a reproducing, non-entropic cell demonstrates the fatal defect in the perpetual Leftist quest to kill their progeny. Both sperm and egg are launched with a load of fuel and a singular purpose; when the fuel supply runs out they do not seek fuel, they die. They are purely entropic, as opposed to normal cells which are not. Not only do they not reproduce and are not produced by other sperm/egg cells, they do not self-repair or do other functions that are normal to all living cells. Their death is assured by their statistically arranged missions, where the egg and sperm might not ever meet and their deaths are assured by their inability to self-repair. They are one-shot bullets, animated and dying entropicially as they are emitted.”
I did not deny that they are alive; I only asserted their source and limitations which relegate them to a lower form of life.
Then back to the false dichotomy. I said:
”Sperm is alive in terms of motility, similar to a drone being alive because it moves; but it fails the definition of life as reproductive, non-entropic, self-sustaining metabolism, etc. etc; it is not the same as regular cell life though, and your "test" is to look at motion - only: a primitive and incomplete definition process regarding what constitutes life, probably induced not by objectively regarding the full characteristics of the sperm as they map onto the necessary characteristics of a living thing, but by applying the necessity of ideology.”
No denial that sperm is alive; merely trying to get the abortionistas to understand the type of life that a sperm actually is.
(more below)
Then Action UK presented a counter definition of life which allows one to pick and choose from several characteristics, so that apparently there is no set of necessary and sufficient properties for life.
Then Aqium offered this:
”Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg. "
Carl Sagan”
I refused to acknowledge Sagan’s moral authority; he alluded to an argument for which he didn’t present any premises. Then I pointed out Sagan’s logical discontinuity.
Then Action UK claims that his link shows that sperm cells perform meiosis. They do not, according to his own link.
Then started the false accusations. Here’s Action UK:
” ”Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Have you made an argument that relies on sperm not being alive? I honestly don't know why.”
Blatantly false accusation.
Then Sandy chimes in, followed by Akira Toriyama who claims that the seed of a tree is analogous to sperm. That is false: pollen is the analog of sperm; the seed is the analog of a fertilized egg. S/he continues the false accusation that I claim that sperm is not alive and is inanimate(!) Then Akira brings in the Catholic Church for some unknown reason (posssibly for Appeal to Authority?)
At that point I try to reiterate the focal point, and Andrew chimes in with this:
”The issue is not whether sperm is alive.
That actually IS the issue that has dominated a substantial portion of the comments.
Attempting to shift the goal posts and drowning the dialogue in straw men assertions merely reinforces your inability to concede an elementary fact of biology that has been repeatedly clarified.
How can you possibly think to have a reasoned conversation if you cannot stand to be corrected on such a basic definition.”
I never made the claim that sperm is not alive. I made the observation that it doesn’t qualify for the definition of independent life as determined by the full listing of necessary and sufficient properties. It is a terminal life which is entropic and which contains the DNA of the host which created it. It neither seeks nor acquires energy from external sources. So it is not a separate human nor is it a separate species, it is an extension of the host, and only that. Nor is it alive in the reproductive sense that self-reproducing cells are alive, like skin cells, which reproduce themselves specifically. That doesn’t mean that it is not alive, at a very low state of life.
Rather than refute these statements, the false claims begin, in an attempt to smear rather than refute.
The false claims – lies – that have been produced here seem necessary for the abortion fans to provide continuity for their programs of killing humans in fetal form. The necessity for creating lies, rather than having to humble themselves before uncomfortable truth seems to be a necessary rhetorical tool for the AtheoLeft.
" It neither seeks nor acquires energy from external sources"
Sperm metabolises fructose from the seminal fluid to gather energy. This takes place in the mitochondria located in the sperm's midpiece (at the base of the sperm head).
It is a terminal life
Like all life?
which is entropic
It feeds and grows and matures during spermatogenesis. How do you think it appears? Ex nihilo?
As for defining a fetus under the same characteristics of life, which characteristics does it fail?
A fetus cannot regulate its internal environment, it relies on the placenta to metabolize energy, and does not respond to stimulus until the nervous system matures. It also obvious cannot reproduce until sexual maturity.
Please don't misinterpret this as an argument from myself as "fetus are not alive."
sperm are not separate species of living things
And no one claimed sperm are a separate species.
(a) Sperm is alive in a sense lesser than skin cells, which do reproduce themselves, while sperm does not. Sperm is an extension of the host, carrying the host’s DNA; it is not a separate life or species.
And the same can be said for a fetus at the point of conception.
I made the observation that it doesn't qualify for the definition of independent life as determined by the full listing of necessary and sufficient properties.
You don't deny that they are alive, but claim they fail to meet the definition of being alive? ...
Well you have succeeded in confusing pretty much everyone in this conversation by not agreeing that sperm are alive and continuing (and still continuing) to provide arguments to the contrary.
Again, a fetus cannot possibly be considered an "independent life", as it is wholly dependent on the mother.
Sandy said,
" It neither seeks nor acquires energy from external sources"
Sperm metabolises fructose from the seminal fluid to gather energy. This takes place in the mitochondria located in the sperm's midpiece (at the base of the sperm head).
Yes, it does. That is specifically arranged for sperm, which doesn’t have to seek it, but does get it from an external source, being drenched it. My statement was incorrect since it didn’t include the condition of being bathed in nutrients. Outside of a nutrient bath, the statement is correct. Regardless, the character of a sperm cell is still not an individuated human life; it is an extension of the host, carrying the DNA of the host.
” It is a terminal life
Like all life?”
It is terminal without reproducing another sperm like itself, e.g. no meiosis.
” which is entropic
It feeds and grows and matures during spermatogenesis. How do you think it appears? Ex nihilo?”
It is called a sperm at maturity. Prior to maturity they are called spermatocytes, then spermatids, and finally, mature spermatozoa (or “sperm”). How do you think it appears? Directly from another sperm? It does not.
As far as entropy is concerned, my statement is incorrect so long as the sperm is being fed (anetropically), i.e., so long as it is drenched in nutrients; outside of seminal fluid or the female uterus, the sperm doesn’t seek or find nutrition and dies, entropically.
Regardless, the character of a sperm cell is still not an individuated human life.
Now that you have nitpicked the words and phrases, how about addressing the actual subject at hand: abortion. The Atheists here have tried to subvert the question of the morality of scissors-through-the-skull killing of humans at the fetal stage by caroming off into questions surrounding sperm.
It’s time for you to address the actual wanton killing of the human in fetal form.
Andrew,
The fetus is a wholly individuated human at a specific, necessary stage of human development, starting with a fertilized egg.
It is not the case that a fetus is the same as that, as you claim. the fetus does not carry the male parent's DNA, it carries its own DNA, fabricated from both parent's DNA, and is an individual separate from the DNA identity of either parent.
The term "independent" was unfortunate and incorrect. I was thinking of an independent set of genetic materials as in DNA. But it came across as an independent life, which it will become if unencumbered with hostile actions toward its existence, but which it obvously is not, as a fetus.
However, it does point to the issue of the AtheoLeft presuming moral authority to kill those who are dependent, since dependency is an issue, doesn't it?
To all involved here:
I allowed this to get out of control, by attempting to answer Red Herrings: that's my fault.
Now it is time for the vocal AtheoLeftists here to come right out and defend the killing of individuated human life at the necessary stage of fertilized egg and throughout the further developmment of the embryo/fetus.
It seems odd that I must defend human life from wanton killing, regardless of the stage. The fact that the AtheoLeft is so cavalier about taking life demonstrates the continuation of the standard Leftist march toward Animal Farm.
Let's get specific.
1. Explain why it is OK to jam scissors into someone else's brain, but not yours.
2. Explain why it would have been OK to jam scissors into your own brain, but just not now.
3. Explain why someone else, say Peter Singer or the Emmanuel brothers, shouldn't have the moral authority that allows the decision to have scissors jammed into your brain right now.
4. Explain why you are special, and exempt from the very types of death decisions which you morally authorize yourself to make for Others.
I suspect that the bravery of those defending the Choice to kill someone else will fade rapidly when it comes to that Choice for someone to kill the Choicers themselves. I.e. there will be few if any honest responses to the real issues.
Stan you can't possibly think that a fetus failing your definition of "alive" is irrelevant to this discussion.
Of course a fetus carries the DNA of both the mother and the father. I can't grasp why you would claim otherwise.
It is difficult to have a higher level conversation when we disagree on basic biological facts.
Also, it is possible that people have ceased posting because you have abandoned your pretense of reasonable dialogue and essentially descended into calling everyone communist baby killers.
Or maybe, like myself, they have been occupied with more important things than a carefully crafted explanation on why abortion should be the woman's choice.
I suggest you read the book, "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion", a generally conservative, pro life perspective on the decision to abort.
Andrew,
”Stan you can't possibly think that a fetus failing your definition of "alive" is irrelevant to this discussion.”
Hmm. ”A fetus is an individuated human progressing through a specific and necessary stage of human development.” That definition?
”Of course a fetus carries the DNA of both the mother and the father. I can't grasp why you would claim otherwise.”
I didn’t claim otherwise. That was a main thrust of my argument at that point. Read again.
”It is difficult to have a higher level conversation when we disagree on basic biological facts.”
That would be true if we disagreed; however, I think you must have misread my point. I suspect that there is no higher level of conversation to be had with those who demand for themselves the right to determine which human lives and which one dies. That ability, the power over life and death, is an ideological power that once it is assumed, it rarely is voluntarily divested and much more commonly it will increase its power and scope a la Nietzsche, Hegel etc. to include other categories of humans. It's historical.
I personally suspect that once they have full control, the elites with the power to devalue and kill will divide, turn on each other, and the devastation will be spectacular. But first their common enemies will be devalued. It’s historical; deny it and then repeat it. All part of the human condition.
”Also, it is possible that people have ceased posting because you have abandoned your pretense of reasonable dialogue and essentially descended into calling everyone communist baby killers.”
I gave them (you) a reasonable chance to value their (your) own lives in a fashion similar to how they (you) pretend to have the moral authority to value other’s lives. If they (you) don’t care for the scissors through your skull based on an unknown elitist’s estimation of the value of them (you), at their (your) stage of development, that would actually be just too bad under the abortion scheme where they (you) don’t have a say in it.
If you are unable to see that this is exactly the same thing which is being done to voiceless humans by the thousands every day, then there is actually no hope for you and I to have a conversation about it. It is not reasonable to say that eugenics is good, but just only in this one situation of which “I approve”.
(continued)
(from above)
(from above)
”Or maybe, like myself, they have been occupied with more important things than a carefully crafted explanation on why abortion should be the woman's choice.”
Or maybe they can see that women are NOT allowed to kill their children whenever they choose, except when the children are at certain predefined stages which are declared without value by elitists Or maybe women should have the “right” to off their offspring at any age? Maybe even grandmothers can off their useless grndchildren? The “woman’s right to kill her offspring” is an absurd argument, unless the audience for it desperately needs any argument it can get to support their desire for wanton fetal death for convenience. And privacy is an even shallower argument.
”I suggest you read the book, "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion", a generally conservative, pro life perspective on the decision to abort. “
I suggest that you explain why your personal value now is so much greater than your personal value as a pre-birth human; and explain why someone else should not even now place a value on your life for you, and determine outside your personal authority whether you should live or die. AtheoLeftists are very brave when killing voiceless, defenseless humans. For one thing, they don’t vote, and can’t and won’t ever. But the elitists rankle when the same concept is applied to themselves, and they refuse to answer why it should not be applied to themselves because it is a directly applicable concept – devalue a category of humans and then allow them to be killed.
And I repeat: support for abortion directly puts the lie to the concept that Atheists are empathetic. Rather, they fight to keep their personal elitist ability to:
devalue a category of humans and then allow them to be killed.
This is a false “right” which the elitists cherish, right up to the point where it applies to themselves. Then not so much.
That definition?
No.
For a complete list of necessary and sufficient elements of life, go here:
http://lifeorigin.info/).
That definition.
I suspect that there is no higher level of conversation to be had with those who demand for themselves the right to determine which human lives and which one dies
You say this as if you are unaware that you yourself are claiming the right to determine who lives. Your "argument" furthermore is little more than an emotional rant. "Elites, Animal Farm, scissors through the brain (about 37 times), eugenics, government conspiracy theories, etc etc etc". This is not a methodology for a reasoned conversation.
And I repeat: support for abortion directly puts the lie to the concept that Atheists are empathetic.
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another. Fertilized eggs do not have emotions.
Here's one for you Stan. Is a fertilized hen egg, a chicken? You seem to be saying it is. A rather large stretch though, don't you think?
Post a Comment