Abortion to prevent increased suffering

[Chriliman]

Do you mean "murder"? No. The direct killing of an innocent human being is always and everywhere evil.

Except if they ask to be killed to end their suffering. No?

 

[Kylie]

Nope.

Well then, you go and try to prove to an atheist that science is wrong using nothing but a Bible, and let me know how well that works for you.

Why would anyone, let alone a Christian, do such hypocritical thing? Do you know someone who cites as authoritative that which they do not believe is true?

You seriously expect me to believe that no Christian ever resorts to using science to prove their point? I see it all the time.

Well, three possible conclusions: 1) didn't really read the article, 2) didn't understand the science, or 3) a science-denier.

How about you show me the part that describes the research they did?

 

[disciple Clint]

I do find it a puzzler. From your perspective they are merely in another place, happier than they ever could be alive. You should be joyous.

From my perspective I’m never going to see my Nan, grandad and father again. Which has to be more impactful than your perspective.

Well except for the fact that I am also going to be without the company of my loved one for an extended period of time, I am going to suffer that loss just the same as you are going to suffer the loss of your loved ones. I may be comforted by the fact that my loved one is now with God but I am still going to suffer the loss of that personal relationship I had.

 

[Kylie]

Well except for the fact that I am also going to be without the company of my loved one for an extended period of time, I am going to suffer that loss just the same as you are going to suffer the loss of your loved ones. I may be comforted by the fact that my loved one is now with God but I am still going to suffer the loss of that personal relationship I had.

But what is a finite period of time compared with the eternity you'll spend with them when you are reunited in Heaven?

 

[disciple Clint]

But what is a finite period of time compared with the eternity you'll spend with them when you are reunited in Heaven?

Seems a little unreasonable to expect anyone to not suffer the immediate pain of loss just because there will be an eternity together in the future. That is not how human emotions function, it would be a little like breaking a leg and not recognizing pain and loss of use based on the fact that it will only be broken for a month or two and then you will have it feeling and functioning fine for the rest of your life.

 

[o_mlly]

Innocent is a term that varies from time to time, place to place. Remember; during NAZI Germany, all of those people who died in the Concentration camps? The monsters who killed them were innocent under the law of the land.

Legal innocence from immoral laws are does not remit the culpability for the commission of morally evil acts. To the point of this thread, for what evil act does a pre-born human being have any moral culpability? Answer: None.

 

[o_mlly]

Except if they ask to be killed to end their suffering. No?

To the point of this thread, has any pre-born human being asked to be murdered?

 

[o_mlly]

Well then, you go and try to prove to an atheist that science is wrong using nothing but a Bible, and let me know how well that works for you.

? Never done that and already told you that I thought doing so is useless. Do you have a point you are trying to make?

You seriously expect me to believe that no Christian ever resorts to using science to prove their point? I see it all the time.

? Never wrote such a claim. I did write that it was hypocritical for an atheist to cite the bible as their authoritative source in support of their claim which you did in this very thread.

How about you show me the part that describes the research they did?

In academia, we call those parts "footnotes". There are 38 provided in the article. The uniqueness of a zygote is not news in the field of molecular biology as the textbooks cited confirm. If the biology books cited in the article are not at your local library, you may use these online sources:

When Human Life Begins | American College of Pediatricians
https://acpeds.org › position-statements › when-human-...
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg ...
A Distinct Human Organism - NPR
https://www.npr.org › templates › story › story
Nov 22, 2005 — The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity -- a human being -- who ...
Defining the Biological Identity of the Unborn: A Scientific ...
https://scholarspace.jccc.edu › cgi › viewcontent
PDF
by P Slon · 2019 — each other in order to complete the full human genome of a human being after fertilization. The resulting zygote has a unique genetic composition that is ...

 

[Kylie]

Seems a little unreasonable to expect anyone to not suffer the immediate pain of loss just because there will be an eternity together in the future. That is not how human emotions function, it would be a little like breaking a leg and not recognizing pain and loss of use based on the fact that it will only be broken for a month or two and then you will have it feeling and functioning fine for the rest of your life.

Ah, but the rest of your life is not an infinite period of time.

 

[Kylie]

? Never done that and already told you that I thought doing so is useless. Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Yes.

And the point is that if a person is permitted to use a source they don't personally believe is true in order to prove a point to a person who does believe that source to be correct, then there is no problem with an atheist using the Bible to prove a point to a Christian.

? Never wrote such a claim. I did write that it was hypocritical for an atheist to cite the bible as their authoritative source in support of their claim which you did in this very thread.

The same logic would render it hypocritical for a Christian to use science to prove a point to an atheist. Yet you've already claimed that it would be useless for a Christian to do so.

In academia, we call those parts "footnotes". There are 38 provided in the article. The uniqueness of a zygote is not news in the field of molecular biology as the textbooks cited confirm. If the biology books cited in the article are not at your local library, you may use these online sources:

When Human Life Begins | American College of Pediatricians
https://acpeds.org › position-statements › when-human-...
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg ...
A Distinct Human Organism - NPR
https://www.npr.org › templates › story › story
Nov 22, 2005 — The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity -- a human being -- who ...
Defining the Biological Identity of the Unborn: A Scientific ...
https://scholarspace.jccc.edu › cgi › viewcontent
PDF
by P Slon · 2019 — each other in order to complete the full human genome of a human being after fertilization. The resulting zygote has a unique genetic composition that is ...

Did I argue that an embryo does not have a unique DNA signature? No.

You'd do much better if you stopped using strawmen.

 

[disciple Clint]

Ah, but the rest of your life is not an infinite period of time.

an astute observation

 

[Kylie]

an astute observation

Then surely you can see that weighing a finite time of pain against a finite but longer period of no pain is not the same thing as weighing a finite time of pain against an eternity of no pain?

 

[o_mlly]

And the point is that if a person is permitted to use a source they don't personally believe is true in order to prove a point to a person who does believe that source to be correct, then there is no problem with an atheist using the Bible to prove a point to a Christian.

Oh dear. You would do much better if you were logical.

The same logic would render it hypocritical for a Christian to use science to prove a point to an atheist. Yet you've already claimed that it would be useless for a Christian to do so.

Same as above. Let me try to provide two facts to help you see the illogical claims in your post.

1. No atheist is a Christian.
2. Some Christians are scientists.

 

[o_mlly]

Did I argue that an embryo does not have a unique DNA signature? No.

Good. Now what do you argue about that unique human being's right to life?

 

[Chriliman]

To the point of this thread, has any pre-born human being asked to be murdered?

True, but a rebuttal to that would be my earlier point about how pre-12w zygotes don’t have many human qualities, like consciousness, ability to suffer, and viability that we acknowledge fully developed people have.

Seems like we agree on quite a bit except these facts about human development.

 

[o_mlly]

True, but a rebuttal to that would be my earlier point about how pre-12w zygotes don’t have many human qualities, like consciousness, ability to suffer, and viability that we acknowledge fully developed people have.

Seems like we agree on quite a bit except these facts about human development.

Arguing that underdevelopment in a human being justifies that person's murder could justify murdering anyone who is under 30 years old.

Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy

The frontal lobes, home to key components of the neural circuitry underlying “executive functions” such as planning, working memory, and impulse control, are among the last areas of the brain to mature; they may not be fully developed until halfway through the third decade of life.​

We cannot observe the qualities you suggest as necessary in a sleeping infant or a comatose adult. May we kill them too?

 

[Ken-1122]

Legal innocence from immoral laws are does not remit the culpability for the commission of morally evil acts. To the point of this thread, for what evil act does a pre-born human being have any moral culpability? Answer: None.

I was just pointing out the flaw in the claim:
killing of an innocent human being is always and everywhere evil.

 

[Chriliman]

Arguing that underdevelopment in a human being justifies that person's murder could justify murdering anyone who is under 30 years old.

Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy

The frontal lobes, home to key components of the neural circuitry underlying “executive functions” such as planning, working memory, and impulse control, are among the last areas of the brain to mature; they may not be fully developed until halfway through the third decade of life.​

We cannot observe the qualities you suggest as necessary in a sleeping infant or a comatose adult. May we kill them too?

I’ve already addressed these points. My main goal, with you at least, is to determine if you think it’s ever ok to kill someone by taking away that which is keeping them alive? Can you think of a case that I haven’t already mentioned? If not, no worries, we can stop here.

 

[o_mlly]

I was just pointing out the flaw in the claim:
killing of an innocent human being is always and everywhere evil.

No flaw. The claim stands as written.

The direct killing of an innocent human being is always and everywhere evil.​

Unjust laws may make immoral acts lawful but the acts remain evil.

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve already addressed these points.

Sorry, I must have missed that post. Did you refute my counter arguments or just acknowledge them?

... if you think it’s ever ok to kill someone by taking away that which is keeping them alive?

Sure. Do you have a specific instance in mind?