Perhaps there is no point of going on with a discussion of abortion, though I personally quite enjoy seeing how you strain to justify what you must know is unjustifiable.
Abortion is an emotional subject. Defining the point where human life begins is not axiomatic....
Please. You really are not very well focused. The point concerns the basis by which choicers kill their young. You began this exchange by flatly providing an axiomatic definition of the foetus that supported abortion barbarism. I refuted your claim, only to cause you now to claim "it's just my faith I was talking about." But this will not do. Many a heathen in jousting with Christians have claimed it not very elegant to kill on faith, yet today we see they have killed far more than any Inquisition. To put the thing another way, calling ourselves beings of reason requires we use an axiom to justify our slaughter of innocents. We require some reasonable fact that is innate to us. What can that be, James? When you contemplate our essence to by reason discover who we are fundamentally, you will see how naturally abominable abortion is. But you will have to cease this non-thinking faith-based point of view you now hold.
Now you claim defining the point where human life begins is not axiomatic, but certainly defining the point where the human conceptus is deemed "non-human" is not axiomatic. Yet choicers kill as if both were axiomatic. In fact they claim possession of a constitutional "right" to do this evil. Reasonable people call this baseless killing "barbarism." And because many folk are now forced to support it by law, it is brutally repugnant.
I claim nothing out of thin air. To me, (again, this is subjective opinion and stated rather simplistically), "I think, I feel, therefore I am" defines human life...
If one claims thoughts are the fundamental measure of man, one might just as well claim the same about legs and arms. "I think, therefore I am" is ancient child's play. We now know better.
Even so, this is a far cry from your original statement, to wit A fetus in the undeveloped state that you described is not a vegetable or a human being. It is a potential human being.
This is a statement pulled right out of thin air, whether it is the thin air of your opinion or that of your mind. Moreover, and again, this "think/am" axiom is arbitrary at is core, and is based upon ancient ignorance. It is not exactly reasonable to reduce humanity's essence merely to electrical impulses coursing through an organ, and then kill as if this view is gospel. To do this is to completely ignore the extraordinary force that brought those organs and impulses into being. No. There is something deeper and more significant even than our thoughts for which we must logically account.
It is more reasonable to reduce humanity even further than thought, as far downward as possible, down to the purest self-existent, self-promoting circumstance that make impulses and all other human experience possible. Here is where we find humanity in a nutshell. All experience and existence, including "thoughts" and "feelings," is based upon it. Thinking does not just up and happen. It does not exist as an entity, an essence, but rather depends fundamentally on the ever flowing process of human development. Now, we are talking reason, as there is very little arbitrariness here. On this level, the bit is either on-- or it is off.
In your case that bit was turned on the moment your mother and father's genetic code bonded within its unique biological environment to replicate over time. When that happened, a self-existent, self-promoting entity came into being with a full and naturally expressed interest to survive. That very same self-promoting self-replicating essence exists within you this very moment. Your flesh, bones, muscle, brain and even your "feelings" and "thoughts" are but a single medium by which it is protected, expressed and eventually extended through time. Remember, you promoted yourself long before you had a brain. Self-preservation and promotion is innate to you, apart from what we consider to be "thought." And now we see how corrupt a thing this abortion really is. It is by nature contrary to your essential being, just as is murder. Indeed, abortion is the purest form of murder.
In this context, an unviable, undeveloped fetus not yet at the stage of cognition or feeling is indeed a potential human being.
Yes and now we see the context is fallacious. Even so, many people who once felt and thought, but who no longer feel or think, but who have the mere potential to again feel and think, are not people in your limited view. A person can lose conscience, be certain to gain conscience (as a foetus is certain to gain conscience) and yet be murdered without any questions asked. This is barbarity. Humanity stands a much better chance with my view.
To those who believe that at the moment of conception, God creates a person and a soul, my definition and context are erroneous. So be it.
Not quite, because for many if it ever it falls into their hands to eliminate those who think as you do, they will and should do it. So if you yet say "so be it," you then dismiss the implications far too flippantly, betraying your lack of understanding. You see, should some people ever lose conscience and must be attended to by anyone, they would reasonably want themselves attended to only by those who think your definitions erroneous.
What millions? And how do you define murder?
Murder is but a name of an act transpiring within human relations. It is the killing of innocent humans and runs contrary to the survival of our social order and species.
No, I'm saying that a consensus view of this issue is impossible, based upon a divergence of underlying assumptions.
A consensus view is impossible only because most people are nitwits. The facts are before us, and those with brains with which to think can easily see them.
To be precise, abortion would only be about self-preservation from the point of view of the fetus.
Ba-lone-y.
Seeing it as a matter of life and death is indeed the viewpoint of many. And I'm not claiming any philosophical "edge" over anyone, just stating where I'm coming from.
You are also stating where others are "coming from" with such statements as
A fetus in the undeveloped state that you described is not a vegetable or a human being. It is a potential human being. Using terms such as "vegetable" or "bag of cells" is as disingenuous as pro lifers calling a fertilized egg a "baby".
and
PBA is a red herring thrown out by pro lifers. It is a rarely used procedure and usually done under dire life threatening circumstances.
*********************************************************** dialogue continues **************************************************
Hmm, so I should be murdered for what I think?
You think, therefore you are, right? Therefore it is important to go after those thoughts. (grin)
Hmm, again. I'm not sure whether such chastisement should leave me feeling offended or flattered. :-)
Try both. You done good at one point, and done stupidly at another. (grin)
I'm sorry, but there is no "abortion philosophy".
Never truer words have been spoken. I instead should have said "abortion barbarism." Under abortion barbarism PBA is logical, and so why not FBA?
There are widely divergent views as to the definition of the beginning of life. Mine happens to fall between the extremes, as I stated above. I am personally against PBA unless there is a compelling medical necessity for the procedure.
This 'wide divergence' is the result of ignorance or something worse. The facts are before us. Humanity's essence reaches farther than mere thought. Thought is but a mechanism for human expression and survival. It is not a self-existent, self-promoting entity, but plainly depends upon one. It plainly is not fundamental humanity itself, and you should thank God for this fact, particularly after your performance here (grin).
I knew that [fundie statement] would rattle your cage. LOL! I don't want to force anything. But isn't it just plain common sense that knowledge of birth control and reproductive mechanisms would help to alleviate unwanted pregnancy and the abortion procedures that you detest so much?
Hehe. Yes. This is all common sense. But of course common sense is not what it used to be.
(Ding - lunch) |
