Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[InterestedAtheist]

Human life has more value than the chickens.

Okay. do you feel like addressing my points yet?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, going to bed now. I shall leave SPF and Selene to consider if they can answer this.

Currently, miscarriages are not treated as a health crisis, even though millions of them happen every year. From the point of view of pro-choice people, this is completely normal; the disposal of a small lump of flesh that would have become a person is no problem. but from the pro-life point of view, such a phenomenon should be a public health crisis, and there should be teams of doctors and scientists working to prevent the deaths of millions of children a year, just as there are to fight childhood cancer and other causes of infant diseases. But there isn't. Why not? Why don't pro-lifers see miscarriages as a public health crisis?

 

[SPF]

If.
Your goal is to explain why you yourself believe abortion is wrong.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to convince me that abortion is wrong, then I hope you can see the illogic in saying "You should be against abortion because God says it is wrong."
So, in other words, yes, you did lose the argument from the outset because you based the success of the argument on all participants being Christians, and I'm not.
If you yourself wish to hold the religious belief that abortion is wrong, then by all means do so. But if you wish to persuade me of it, you're not going to succeed with "abortion is wrong because God said so," because I don't believe that God exists.

A simple working definition of truth would be: That which corresponds to reality.

For example, it is either true or false that God exists. What you or I think or believe about God’s existence has no bearing on whether or not He actually exists.

You’re saying that I’ve lost the argument from the outset because you don’t believe in God, but that doesn’t work. My argument isn’t dependent upon your beliefs.

If my argument corresponds to reality then it’s valid. You’re basically saying that in order to prove my point I have to do it from an atheistic worldview, which I don’t believe corresponds to reality, so I won’t.

I'm pointing out that any part of a human can be removed without affecting the personality, except for the brain. This is a known scientific fact. If you doubt it, then please show me a case in which a part of the body was removed and it affected the personality of the individual, or a case in which a brain was removed without affecting the personality.

I don’t disagree with that. What I disagree with is agreeing with your categorical mistake that a dead human being is the same as a growing and living human being.

What I was pointing out was that pro-life people - and am I mistaken in including you in this? - do not see miscarriages as a public health epidemic, even though it involves the deaths of millions of "children" a year.
Can you explain this?

Again, this is a red herring as it has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. But since you seem stuck on it, I will say that as a Christian I see miscarriages as a tragic result of sin entering the world, just like all other tragic and sad things that currently happen.

Now as for the topic of the morality of abortion...

P1: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value.

P2: all human beings come into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: All human beings possess inherent moral worth and value from fertilization.

Please feel free to either show what I’ve said is either a non-sequitor or has false premises.[/I]

 

[Selene03]

Okay. do you feel like addressing my points yet?

I've already addressed your points a long time ago.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

A simple working definition of truth would be: That which corresponds to reality.

For example, it is either true or false that God exists. What you or I think or believe about God’s existence has no bearing on whether or not He actually exists.

You’re saying that I’ve lost the argument from the outset because you don’t believe in God, but that doesn’t work. My argument isn’t dependent upon your beliefs.

If my argument corresponds to reality then it’s valid. You’re basically saying that in order to prove my point I have to do it from an atheistic worldview, which I don’t believe corresponds to reality, so I won’t.

Not the atheistic point of view. The secular point of view. If you're unfamiliar with the meaning of this term, secular means "not overtly or specifically religious".
If your argument is that abortion is bad because God says it is, then you can only use that argument on people who believe that God exists (and most of them disagree with you anyway - but that's another issue).

You’re basically saying that in order to prove my point I have to do it from an atheistic worldview, which I don’t believe corresponds to reality, so I won’t.

Okay. Don't. But then all you can say is "I believe that abortion is bad because I'm a Christian," which is completely different to what you've been trying to claim, which is "You should agree with me that abortion is bad."

You really have painted yourself into a corner, haven't you?
That's why pro-lifers make the wholly hypocritical argument that abortion is "child murder", always being very careful not to bring their religion into it.
I commend you for your honesty, but you gave the game away. You might want to note that for future discussions.

Todd and I are, in the words of dad: "undefeated".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've already addressed your points a long time ago.

You tried to.

 

[Selene03]

You tried to.

No. I did.

 

[SPF]

The only reason that abortion can be considered immoral is if there actually are objective morals. And there can only be objective morals if God exists. For if man is the measure of what is right and wrong, then morality is necessarily subjective as no man has more inherent authority over another man to declare something as moral or immoral.

Thus, that’s why I say that if I was an atheist, then I wouldn’t have a problem with abortion.

But I believe that God exists. Furthermore, I believe that Gods character is immutable and that morality flows from it.

I also believe that God created mankind in His image, and that we therefore possess inherent moral worth and value.

I believe this is true regardless of whether or not you believe it. I believe these are truths that correspond to reality.

If I’m right, then at the very least, 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience sake are immoral.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, but it’s true regardless of what you believe.

My arguments are logically sound. The best you can do is create subjective and arbitrary distinctions between human beings and human persons and then use poorly crafted arguments that rest on categorical mistakes and question begging to argue for them.

Nothing you’ve presented has been persuasive or would pass any sort of critical examination by anyone with a freshman level of critical thinking.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The only reason that abortion can be considered immoral is if there actually are objective morals. And there can only be objective morals if God exists. For if man is the measure of what is right and wrong, then morality is necessarily subjective as no man has more inherent authority over another man to declare something as moral or immoral.
Thus, that’s why I say that if I was an atheist, then I wouldn’t have a problem with abortion.

But that's not what you said, is it?
You said - and I took the trouble to go back and find this:
"If I was an atheist, I would have no problem with abortion because I would see morality as subjective. But as a Christian, I do believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value." (emphasis mine).
So, there we have it. You believe that all human beings (among which you count the human organisms known as fetuses and their earlier stages) as being created in the image of God and possessing inherent worth and value". I, on the other hand, am not a Christian, so what Christians might think doesn't apply to me.

I also believe that God created mankind in His image, and that we therefore possess inherent moral worth and value.
I believe this is true regardless of whether or not you believe it. I believe these are truths that correspond to reality.

The operative word there being "believe", with a notable absence of "prove".

If I’m right, then at the very least, 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience sake are immoral.

That "if" is doing a huge amount of work! Yes, if you are right, abortion is wrong. But since your basis for thinking you're right rests on your believing in God, you have no business telling non-Christians that they're wrong.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, but it’s true regardless of what you believe.

If it were, you'd be able to prove it. Instead, all you've done for pages is repeat "A human organism IS a person. It is, it is, it IS!"

My arguments are logically sound. The best you can do is create subjective and arbitrary distinctions between human beings and human persons and then use poorly crafted arguments that rest on categorical mistakes and question begging to argue for them.

Point 1: Your brain is your personality. If your brain were replaced by someone else's, then you would not exist any more. It would be a different person living behind your eyes. Every part of the body can be switched without affecting the personality, but not the brain Nobody disputes this. The brain is the person.
Point 2: Fetuses and earlier stages lack brains. Therefore, they are brainless "people", humans lacking the thing that makes us persons, and therefore they are not persons. They will become persons - possibly - but until then, they are not.
Unless you have something new to say, that's really all there is to it.

Nothing you’ve presented has been persuasive or would pass any sort of critical examination by anyone with a freshman level of critical thinking.

Thank you for your opinion of my arguments. I shall give it the respect and attention that it deserves.

 

[SPF]

I, on the other hand, am not a Christian, so what Christians might think doesn't apply to me.

It applies to you if it is true.

That "if" is doing a huge amount of work! Yes, if you are right, abortion is wrong. But since your basis for thinking you're right rests on your believing in God, you have no business telling non-Christians that they're wrong.

Unless they are actually wrong. Atheists have no problem at all (you for example) telling Christians on this forum that they are wrong about many things.

If it were, you'd be able to prove it. Instead, all you've done for pages is repeat "A human organism IS a person. It is, it is, it IS!"

Actually, the burden of proof rests with you in your attempt at claiming there is a difference between a human being and a human person. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out, this distinction is entirely subjective and arbitrary.

There may be a utilitarian reason to create a distinction, but there is no actual inherent distinction.

 

[SPF]

Point 2: Fetuses and earlier stages lack brains. Therefore, they are brainless "people", humans lacking the thing that makes us persons, and therefore they are not persons. They will become persons - possibly - but until then, they are not.

Also, I hope you realize how this is a perfect example of begging the question.

For those of you reading along, Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words,begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

You stated that "humans lacking the things that make us persons" and that "they will become persons". In other words, you are assuming with these statements that there actually is a difference between a human being and a human person. You need to stop assuming your premise is true when you make a case for it.

 

[Selene03]

Point 1: Your brain is your personality. If your brain were replaced by someone else's, then you would not exist any more. It would be a different person living behind your eyes. Every part of the body can be switched without affecting the personality, but not the brain Nobody disputes this. The brain is the person.

Brain transplant doesn't exist. This is science fiction. What makes you so certain that the brain is the person, and not the soul? As an atheist, you probably don't believe that people have souls; yet, you expect us to believe in something even you know is science fiction?

Point 2: Fetuses and earlier stages lack brains. Therefore, they are brainless "people", humans lacking the thing that makes us persons, and therefore they are not persons. They will become persons - possibly - but until then, they are not.
Unless you have something new to say, that's really all there is to it.

I see.....so you agree they are brainless "people". And it's okay to discriminate against these "people" because they are small and less developed?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Brain transplant doesn't exist. This is science fiction. What makes you so certain that the brain is the person, and not the soul? As an atheist, you probably don't believe that people have souls; yet, you expect us to believe in something even you know is science fiction?

We don't need to see an actual brain transplant to know that the personality is a function of the brain. If you wish, however, to say that it exists in some other part of the body, please provide your proof that people think with their hearts, elbows or toes. Otherwise, the point stands: working brain = person, and lack of working brain = not person.

Oh, and thank you for your admission there, that your objection to abortion is entirely a religious one. No, as an atheist I don't believe souls exist, and if your argument is based on their existing then you lose the debate, just as SPF did, because a religious argument can apply only to the religious.
It certainly takes a long time to drag it out of you people, doesn't it?

I see.....so you agree they are brainless "people". And it's okay to discriminate against these "people" because they are small and less developed?

Perhaps you failed to notice that I put "people" in quotation marks? Shame on you for thinking that size matters! It isn't discrimination, because they aren't persons, because they lack the equipment for personhood.
It is no crime to abort a potential person; no person exists to be harmed.

You want to prove me wrong? Alright. Please provide evidence that the personality is located outside the brain.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It applies to you if it is true.

The operative word there is "if". We're not discussing whether or not God exists, we're discussing whether abortion is right or wrong.
Funny that you should feel the need to explain "begging the question" - a mistake that I didn't make - while committing a huge example of it yourself: you can't tell me that "God says abortion is wrong," because you haven't shown that God exists.
In other words:

It applies to you if it is true.

"Okay. Prove to me that it is true. And until you do, I'm right and you're wrong."
You know, you really did make a serious mistake in showing that your real objection to abortion is a religious one. Anti-abortionists are generally cannier than that.

Unless they are actually wrong. Atheists have no problem at all (you for example) telling Christians on this forum that they are wrong about many things.

Generally, what atheists do is remind Christians that they have no evidence for their claims. And generally, they're correct to do so.

Actually, the burden of proof rests with you in your attempt at claiming there is a difference between a human being and a human person. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out, this distinction is entirely subjective and arbitrary.
There may be a utilitarian reason to create a distinction, but there is no actual inherent distinction.

Hmmm. I don't know. The presence or absence of a working brain sounds like quite a big difference to me!

You stated that "humans lacking the things that make us persons" and that "they will become persons". In other words, you are assuming with these statements that there actually is a difference between a human being and a human person. You need to stop assuming your premise is true when you make a case for it.

Oh, shoot. And there I was thinking I'd made the case, oh, only about ten or twelve times over the course of this thread.
Tell you what: I'll just provide a link here to this summarising article, to save myself the work of explaining again: On the Morality of: Abortion
There we go. I can just keep reposting it any time you forget the essential facts.

Also, I hope you realize how this is a perfect example of begging the question.
For those of you reading along, Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words,begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
You stated that "humans lacking the things that make us persons" and that "they will become persons". In other words, you are assuming with these statements that there actually is a difference between a human being and a human person. You need to stop assuming your premise is true when you make a case for it.

Only if I haven't explained what that difference is and why it is important, old chap. Which I have. Again and again. It's not my fault, or problem, if you don't want to accept it.
Mind you, I am a bit surprised that you can't even seem to remember what I said.

 

[SPF]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to create a distinction between a human being without moral value and a human person with moral value?

I’m my experience it’s only been so someone can justify an action against the non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

 

[miknik5]

Hello again,
I think we're both quite happy to keep pointing out your mistakes.
Like this:

You keep saying that as if it wins the argument. And you keep posting quotes which say the same thing in different words. But both Todd and I are in agreement with you. We're pointing out that a new human organism is not the same thing as a person.


Again, we've explained the criteria, and I would be happy to debate them with anyone who says that they think personhood depends on having a working heart (which it obviously doesn't, as hearts can be transplanted) or being born (which it obviously doesn't, as one does not become a person based on location, ie inside or outside the womb).

You, on the other hand, have been presented with arguments and failed to refute them - or, sometimes, even to acknowledge them.

Since you won't answer them, I can do it for you. Feel free to correct me, if you are able.

1. If your brain was moved to Australia, and your body remained in the USA, and if both of them were kept alive and capable of reunification - then "you" would be in Australia, and if your body died but your brain could still be transplanted into another body, then "you" would still be alive.
2. If it were possible to activate an artificial intelligence that genuinely did have the rights of a living person, then it would be no crime to disassemble it before it was activated.
3. Currently, miscarriages are not treated as a health crisis, even though millions of them happen every year. From the point of view of pro-choice people, this is completely normal; the disposal of a small lump of flesh that would have become a person is no problem. but from the pro-life point of view, such a phenomenon should be a public health crisis, and there should be teams of doctors and scientists working to prevent the deaths of millions of children a year, just as there are to fight childhood cancer and other causes of infant diseases. But there isn't. Why not? Why don't pro-lifers see miscarriages as a public health crisis?
The answer is, of course, that pro-lifers are actually just anti-abortionists, and their opinions are the result of a political strategy in the 1970s and 80s, as shown by the fact that before then, the evangelical community was pretty solidly pro-choice. But then they found that accusing their opponents of being baby-killers - no matter how ridiculous the idea, and the harm it caused - was an effective way to consolidate political and religious influence.

Oh, and one more thing. You already effectively lost the argument when you said you could never hope to persuade us, because your opinion was a religious one. That's wrong, of course, but if you think it's true, then you concede that it only applies to your religion, which means that nonreligious people can ignore it, and so can the religiously neutral laws of countries.

It is the responsibility of the human person to nurture the human organism

And, regardless of belief or disbelief in God, it is and should be the natural response of the human person to do that

 

[miknik5]

An abortion should never be a choice because of inconvenience

 

[Selene03]

We don't need to see an actual brain transplant to know that the personality is a function of the brain. If you wish, however, to say that it exists in some other part of the body, please provide your proof that people think with their hearts, elbows or toes. Otherwise, the point stands: working brain = person, and lack of working brain = not person.

Oh, and thank you for your admission there, that your objection to abortion is entirely a religious one. No, as an atheist I don't believe souls exist, and if your argument is based on their existing then you lose the debate, just as SPF did, because a religious argument can apply only to the religious.
It certainly takes a long time to drag it out of you people, doesn't it?


Perhaps you failed to notice that I put "people" in quotation marks? Shame on you for thinking that size matters! It isn't discrimination, because they aren't persons, because they lack the equipment for personhood.
It is no crime to abort a potential person; no person exists to be harmed.

You want to prove me wrong? Alright. Please provide evidence that the personality is located outside the brain.

Brother InterestedAtheist, the word "soul" in Hebrew is "nephesh". I told you that it means "person", but there's another meaning. It also means "mind". There are scientists who study the brain and scientists who study the mind. Psychology is not a religious word. It's a field in science that studies the human mind. According to the article below, it appears that in regards to drug and alcohol addiction, our free will is in our mind rather than in our brain (the bold is mine):

Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."

The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.

The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.

Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.

The neurocentric model leaves the addicted person (Downey, in this case) in the shadows. Yet to treat addicts and guide policy, it is important to understand how addicts think. It is the minds of addicts that contain the stories of how addiction happens, why they continue to use, and, if they decide to stop, how they manage. The answers can't be divined from an examination of his brain, no matter how sophisticated the probe.

It is only natural that advances in knowledge about the brain make us think more mechanistically about ourselves. But in one venue, in particular - the courtroom - this bias can be a prescription for confusion. The brain-based defense ("Look at this fMRI scan, your Honor. My client's brain made him do it.") is now commonplace in capital defenses. The problem with these claims is that, with rare exception, neuroscientists cannot yet translate aberrant brain functions into the legal requirements for criminal responsibility -- intent, rational capacity and self-control.

What we know about many criminals is that they did not control themselves. That is very different from being unable to do so. To date, brain science cannot allow us to distinguish between these alternatives. What's more, even abnormal-looking brains, have owners who are otherwise quite normal.

Regardless of whether you have people in quotation marks or not, you already admitted in previous posts that they are human. So, you discriminate a group of humans who are smaller and less developed? Do you believe it's a crime to eliminate a human....even if that human is small and less developed?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As to your first point, the mind is basically a function of the brain. The fact that we don't understand all about this highly complicated field is completely irrelevant - unless you can provide evidence that the mind can exist without the brain. Again, without a working brain, no mind - no person.

Second, I have never disputed that fetuses are human. You really would benefit from rereading the thread; this has come up time and time again. You and SPF keep saying, "but a fetus is a human!" and Todd and I kept saying, "Yes, we know".
At this point, I think it's a waste of my time answering points which have already been answered. From now on, when something comes up that I've already addressed multiple times, I shall just say:
Please see this summary of the argument, and let me know if you have a reasonable objection to it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

An abortion should never be a choice because of inconvenience

Why not?