There really is no point. I enjoy the occasional philosophical jousting, not to change your mind (or anyone elses), but for purely personal benefit?
Then as far as I'm concerned, that qualifies as a point.
I'm sure that you're aware of the difference between opinion and fact, but I've never seen you preface your opinions with the fact that that's what they are, opinions.
I do it, occasionally. Often it is implied by my use of the words "I think that..." But here, concerning abortion, I do not speak from mere opinion. I speak from fact. The point at which a distinct human organism begins to send itself forward, participating in the carbon cycle, can be precisely determined. The mere fact that at sundry times it takes on various devices (such as arms and a brain) to achieve its natural goal is irrelevant to the fact of its existence.
Abortion is a fact. It exists. That you and others consider it murder and thoroughly morally reprehensible is a fact. That you view it as unjustifiable is a fact. That some others do not view it from your perspective is also a fact. The point at which life begins is not indisputable. I have stated my opinion (and stated it as an opinion).
The opinion is in error. The point at which human life begins is beyond logical dispute. One may ignore the facts (as most people do), either willfully or from ignorance, but the fact is, all humans exist, develop and self-promote even before they acquire a brain. All their thinking and feeling is predicated upon their naturally self-promoting essence. Here is where fundamental humanity is found. This is the fundamental nature of man, and it is utterly contradicted by the peculiarly murderous sin known as "abortion." This is why abortion is a sin against nature.
Oh, indeed? What are you, Mr. Pilch, without your thoughts? Are you alive?
This quite depends upon the circumstances. If I have completed my journey through the cycle such that I no longer participate in it, then I am dead-- simply inert DNA. If I am beginning or amidst the cycle such that I am self-promoting, then I exist, even though I do not think. What am I? I am the human essence that naturally seeks energy, nutrition, cells, arms, legs, hair, spermatozoa, ovum, feelings and thoughts, such that I might continually transmit myself through time (we cannot reasonably ignore this fact, waiting for such a time as when thoughts arrive to claim humanity exists). Whether my essence is created by God or is God Himself or is but the result of chemistry is a related, but quite another debate. Biologically speaking (speaking from a position of fundamental organics), humans exist the very moment they begin to strive for self-actualisation. That natural struggle begins long before thinking begins and continues until the grave. (We Christians believe it continues onward till such a time as the human enters hell, or is united with Ultimate Being). That is life, my friend. Life is not "thinking," as "thinking" is no self-actualising entity. "Thinking" rather depends upon the already self-actualising entity that comes into being at the moment of conception. As arms naturally appear on the human being, so does thought. This is not mere opinion. It is incontrovertible fact.
Can your arms and legs survive without your thoughts?
When I used the term "arms and legs," I spoke symbolically. But even so, it is literally the case that "thinking" is but a tool of the human organism-- just as are arms and legs. The unique life-force that interlaced cell upon cell in a trajectory that pointed directly at who you are, and that now points beyond the current you to who you will become, existed long before you acquired arms, legs and a brain. Your arms and brain come from this already self-actualising thing. Not the other way around.
And your statement, "We now know better." Does not "knowing" presuppose thinking?
Irrelevant. You see, knowing is but a consequence and proponent of our nature. Not a cause of it. Our self-promoting, striving nature, existed long before we knew anything. We do indeed know better. We know better because our self-developing nature compels us to know better, and it does it by use of our whole anatomy, including our brains.
Look closely at "I think (and feel), therefore I am." You eloquently observe that we are more than thoughts and feelings. The key is, what is the "I" that thinks and feels?
For this discussion, that is not the key. That "I" that now thinks and feels, existed before it thought and felt. Its natural trajectory caused it to move through time even without thought, such that it could one day take thoughts and feeling in hand and then continue on with its journey of promoting itself outside the womb. The brain, arms and legs are but tools allowing the human being to actualize itself in a new environment. Do not worship them. Instead you ought to humbly bow down to the Force that mysteriously brings them forth.
Again, the earthly fact of the matter is that humans promote themselves as separate entities long before their thoughts come into play. We cannot logically just claim them rocks or cabbages or nothings merely because they have not yet acquired arms, legs and brains. The fact they strive to exist, as we do, and derive their biological identities directly from us, logically compels us to accept them as extensions of ourselves. This is not just opinion, my friend. You may ignore it as you wish, but whenever a striving human organism is aborted, one of the most barbaric kinds of murder in the universe occurs.
[the] soul, [the] essence? Call it what you will?. where does it come from? Indeed, one of the great mysteries. You view the answer from a theological perspective, ie, a gift from God. I prefer to leave it an open question. That which is unknowable is precisely that.
Well again, this is another matter. But the fact is, the striving, self-promoting essence of human organisms exists long before their brains develop. Indeed, it is this very essence that causes brains and feelings and thoughts to arise. We cannot reasonably ignore the fundamental essence of the thing to focus only on "thinking," which is but a result.
That is not my view and I never stated such. A person (yes, I use the word) who is in an irrecoverable state of complete cessation of brain functioning, whos breathing and feeding are performed by machines, is no longer alive, IMO. The choice of what to do in such circumstances should be left to the discretion of family members.
You've described here nothing more than a dead person with a machine that blows air through him-- a thing with no brain activity, no biological self-actualising processes at all, a thing that once lived and that has completed its participation in the carbon cycle. The only choice the family members of this "person" will be left with is where and how to dispose of his body. You certainly cannot compare this cadaver to a human conceptus, and comatose people are not dead as is the fella you've described here.
And a fetus is, by no means, certain to gain consciousness. A number are spontaneously miscarried and a few are carried to term without having developed a brain, to name some exceptions.
I debated with myself as to whether I should clarify myself on this point. I had hoped you would not become distracted by my wording. I feared my attempts to clarify would perhaps have made the thing even more muddled than it was. This is what I aim to say:
When a foetus is developing in the womb, depending upon the circumstances there is a certain amount of expectation as to its outcome. We have a certainty about the outcome, but not necessarily a 100% certainty. Similarly, a person can lose consciousness, be certain to gain consciousness in the same way we have a certainty regarding the foetus' eventual consciousness, and yet under your system be murdered without any questions asked.
We ought not make cognition the measure of man, for we do it at the peril of millions. Pezz and those like him need security, and folk like you and I have a moral duty to be their knights in shining armour, standing ever vigilantly against those who would deem them expendable merely because of their substandard mental activity. ***(hehe) Just kidding, pezz. You're a knucklehead, but I still like you.***
Sure [common sense is what it used to be], although it might be less in evidence these days.
We will just have to disagree here, as we now have returned to the realm of opinion. |
