This is not a human.

[David Gould]

Apart from appearance, how do we determine whether something is human or not? I mean, if we go all the way down to the DNA level, we are still determining by what it looks like - how the wiggly doublehelix looks - as to what it is.

My suspicion is that any definition was give something is arbitary. Is a dead person, for example, a person? If they are not, how can we call them 'a dead person'?

How can we tell whether something is a cat or not other than by the way it looks?

How can we tell whether something is a murder or not other than by the way it looks?

 

[Danhalen]

A properties check on the picture blew your cover.

As I told Sitting Duck "never under estimate the power of the right click".

 

[Lifesaver]

Based on the highlighted section of your response, how can you accuse me of excess emotionally manipulative propaganda? "Culture of death" is nothing more than an emotionally manipulative term for someone that wishes to save lives through means different than your own.

It would seem so, but given the proposals advocated by it, the name "culture of death" is an euphemism, a lighter nickname to hide one of the greatest crimes of mankind.

You think that I am keen on abortion, when in reality I am keen on not forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. You think that I am keen on euthanasia, when in reality I am keen on allowing a person to die with the dignity they deserve, and on their own terms. You think I am keen on the experimentation of embryos, when I am actually keen on finding a potential cure for paralysis and other, as of yet, incurable disorders.
Now, if you feel that a woman should be forced to do something against her will, or people do not have a right to let their bodies die, and that paralysis cures should not be sought, that's your problem. That was a bit of emotional manipulation on my part. Yet I find that it rings true.

It is obvious to me that you have no idea what I actually believe, or what I use to base my decions on.

You have just defended every immoral act I condemned and claimed to be a part of the culture of death, and then you say I have no idea of what you believe in.

Can you answer that question for me? Can you tell me what it is that makes a man? Can you then substantiate your claim? Let's hear your argument rather than your wrong interpretation of mine.

Man is a rational animal. What makes an embryo a man rather than a horse is having a rational soul.

 

[Lifesaver]

Apart from appearance, how do we determine whether something is human or not? I mean, if we go all the way down to the DNA level, we are still determining by what it looks like - how the wiggly doublehelix looks - as to what it is.

My suspicion is that any definition was give something is arbitary. Is a dead person, for example, a person? If they are not, how can we call them 'a dead person'?

How can we tell whether something is a cat or not other than by the way it looks?

How can we tell whether something is a murder or not other than by the way it looks?

You are correct, David; all our knowledge derives itself from what can be observed. Therefore, in any particular individual, all that we can observe on it are the appearances.

However, because man, as I said above, has a rational soul, he is able to, from the information provided by the senses, reach the knowledge of the universal forms which makes things what they are.
We don't see or feel someone's soul; it is impossible to feel anything that is not physical (at least naturally). And yet we arrive rationally at the knowledge of the existence of our souls, and that of others. And then even in people who do not have anything in their appearance to tell us they have a soul, we can know for certainty that they have one.

 

[Danhalen]

It would seem so, but given the proposals advocated by it, the name "culture of death" is an euphemism, a lighter nickname to hide one of the greatest crimes of mankind.

What "great crime" am I hiding?

You have just defended every immoral act I condemned and claimed to be a part of the culture of death, and then you say I have no idea of what you believe in.

Do you feel that forcing a woman to do something she does not want to do moral? Do you think that forcing someone to live a horrible existence is moral? Do you think not trying our best to cure paralysis is moral? If you answered yes to these questions, then you do know what I believe.

Man is a rational animal. What makes an embryo a man rather than a horse is having a rational soul.

Because human embryos are rational. Horse embryos are the most irrational embryos I have ever met. What are you talking about. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of a "rational soul", let alone a soul in general, and you want to tell me that an embryo is rational. Good luck proving that one.

 

[Lifesaver]

What "great crime" am I hiding?

The culture of death is a name which hides many crimes, among them abortion, euthanasia, use of human beings for experiments, infanticide, etc.

Do you feel that forcing a woman to do something she does not want to do moral? Do you think that forcing someone to live a horrible existence is moral? Do you think not trying our best to cure paralysis is moral? If you answered yes to these questions, then you do know what I believe.

More attempt at manipulating. All this just to admit I was right that you shared all or some beliefs with the culture of death, and thus participates in it, either wholy or partially.

Because human embryos are rational. Horse embryos are the most irrational embryos I have ever met. What are you talking about. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of a "rational soul", let alone a soul in general, and you want to tell me that an embryo is rational. Good luck proving that one.

Danhalen, having a rational soul does not mean being rational. In order to be rational (that is, to think and act using reason) a man needs a series of physical characteristics to exist on him in actuality; during its development, when the physical traits are being actualized (coming into actual existence), it is limited first only to vegetative functions, then to sensitive and animal functions, and only then, after many years of life, to the rational one.
A young child is not rational yet. Likewise, there are people, due to physical impediments, never reach the point where they function rationally, the point when their soul's powers are completely actualized. That does not make it right to kill them, despite what some vanguardist "moral philosophers" of today preach, and what will probably become the majority opinion in the future.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

The culture of death is a name which hides many crimes, among them abortion, euthanasia, use of human beings for experiments, infanticide, etc.

There is no 'culture of death'. It's a name invented by fundamentalists in an attempt to insult those who disagree with them on issues affecting life. As pointed out above, it's simply an appeal to emotion, like calling pro-lifers 'anti-choicers'.

Danhalen, having a rational soul does not mean being rational. In order to be rational (that is, to think and act using reason) a man needs a series of physical characteristics to exist on him in actuality; during its development, when the physical traits are being actualized (coming into actual existence), it is limited first only to vegetative functions, then to sensitive and animal functions, and only then, after many years of life, to the rational one.
A young child is not rational yet. Likewise, there are people, due to physical impediments, never reach the point where they function rationally, the point when their soul's powers are completely actualized. That does not make it right to kill them, despite what some vanguardist "moral philosophers" of today preach, and what will probably become the majority opinion in the future.

You've just harpooned yourself. If some humans "never reach the point where they function rationally", then functioning rationally is not what makes a being human. Right now, you're at the point of saying that the only thing that makes a being human is the possession of a soul...an item you cannot identify or evidence. In fact, you can't even define it beyond saying it's something God gives all humans...which makes it completely useless as a definition of 'human', since it's completely circular (humans are those beings with souls...and a soul is that thing that only humans have).

 

[Danhalen]

The culture of death is a name which hides many crimes, among them abortion, euthanasia, use of human beings for experiments, infanticide, etc.

Well, abortion is not a crime in the US. You may want to read up on that a bit. Euthenasia is a crime in some states, I don't understand why. I don't understand why we should not allow a person to die in a way they wish to. I don't understand why we should force someone that suffers every moment of their life to live. I would like to know what you mean about human experimentation and infanticide.

More attempt at manipulating. All this just to admit I was right that you shared all or some beliefs with the culture of death, and thus participates in it, either wholy or partially.

Am I really manipulating, or is it you? The reason I am willing to do these things you consider so heinous, is becasue I support the issues I mentioned. You can believe all you want about what I support, but you are still wrong. If I can find a cure for paralysis through the use of an embryo that is just going to be discarded from a fertility clinic, why shouldn't I? You are the one that supports the forced slavery of a woman, the suffering of a terminal cancer patient, and the continuation of paralysis. If you try to say otherwise, you are just being manipulative, by phrasing things in a way that will put rosey colors on everything you say. You are pro-life at the expense of being pro-quality of life. Good for you!

Danhalen, having a rational soul does not mean being rational. In order to be rational (that is, to think and act using reason) a man needs a series of physical characteristics to exist on him in actuality; during its development, when the physical traits are being actualized (coming into actual existence), it is limited first only to vegetative functions, then to sensitive and animal functions, and only then, after many years of life, to the rational one.
A young child is not rational yet. Likewise, there are people, due to physical impediments, never reach the point where they function rationally, the point when their soul's powers are completely actualized. That does not make it right to kill them, despite what some vanguardist "moral philosophers" of today preach, and what will probably become the majority opinion in the future.

Yeah, right. Prove that the soul exists first. Then prove that a soul inhabits an embryo. Don't just tell me that it is so. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Chrono Traveler]

It's kinda weird some people worry more about the future life of a embryo, that they alreay estlabished life of a person who has alreay experienced what real life has to offer.

So you can either

1.Not experiment, let the experienced person get sick, and never be cured. And let the embryos grow up, get sick and never be cured.

or

2. Experiment, find possilbe cures and treatments for sicknesses for those of us that need it now. And prevent diseases that the embryo might gorw up to have someday....

what do you think is the better choice?

 

[David Gould]

You are correct, David; all our knowledge derives itself from what can be observed. Therefore, in any particular individual, all that we can observe on it are the appearances.

However, because man, as I said above, has a rational soul, he is able to, from the information provided by the senses, reach the knowledge of the universal forms which makes things what they are.

I consider myself fairly intelligent. I do not have this knowledge of which you speak; in fact, I think Platonism - which was not a Christian philosophy but which Christianity adopted as its own - is patently false.

We don't see or feel someone's soul; it is impossible to feel anything that is not physical (at least naturally). And yet we arrive rationally at the knowledge of the existence of our souls, and that of others.

I have not arrived at that conclusion. In fact, I have arrived at the opposite conclusion.

And then even in people who do not have anything in their appearance to tell us they have a soul, we can know for certainty that they have one.

We may be able to know for certain that they have one. I don't know that, however. In fact, I am pretty sure the opposite is the case.

You seem to be arguing that the answer is clear. Yet this is patently untrue. It is not clear. So how do we judge what a person is? It seems to me that you rely on DNA. After all, if you were shown a horse embryo, could you, by looking at it, tell that it did not have a rational soul? No. You would need to examine the DNA. So you are going on the DNA, aren't you? What is it about the DNA that tells you that this embryo has no rational soul?