Abortionist The New Age Nazi's

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1135775' date='Dec 5 2006, 06:23 PM']
no...antibacterial soap is not genetically human. Where did THAT come from? 0.o
[/quote]


Show of hands... who thinks abortion is wrong simply based on genetic similarities?

I'm willing to bet that not one person on this planet is pro-life using that as a justification.

Edited December 5, 2006 by JClives

[pcabibi]

You know what? I'm even going to go out on a limb and tell you that the way you demonize an entire group of people (pro choicers) has ALOT more in common with the Nazi's than the flimsy analogy you put forth.

[Aloysius]

JClives, you have admitted that you accept the fetus as a human person, correct? then explain to me why killing it is not murder?

sure, the fetus, aka human person, is a great burden upon the mother. but if it is a human person, then burdensome or not: killing it is killing a human person.

anyway, what do you mean by "genetic similarity"? at the point of conception the embryo has a unique genetic code; everything down to his eye color has been set in stone and all that is left is a growing process... a growing process which will not stop until he has reached about age 20.

anyway, the analogy works to pro-choicers more by comparing them to nazi-sympathisers than to actual nazis. folks who agreed with the German government's right to choose to kill those persons. you agree with the woman's right to choose to kill what you admit to be a human person. that's the same thing as agreeing with any person's right to choose to kill another human person; and since you agree with allowing it on a wide scale it becomes as bad as agreeing with the nazi's choice of the holocaust.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='JClives' post='1134844' date='Dec 4 2006, 04:07 PM']
This is such despicable right wing propaganda.

Hitler was Pro-Abortion... Not Pro-Choice. To even liken the two as similar is a gross and delibrate distortion of the truth.
[/quote]

If you're going to make that analogy, you might as well say that the German people were pro-choice since they turned a blind eye to everything, even though they might have been "personally against it"

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1135817' date='Dec 5 2006, 08:02 PM']
JClives, you have admitted that you accept the fetus as a human person, correct? then explain to me why killing it is not murder?

sure, the fetus, aka human person, is a great burden upon the mother. but if it is a human person, then burdensome or not: killing it is killing a human person. [/quote]

Aloysius, we've been down this road before and we've already shared our views of the scenery.

Let me explain to you my principles yet again...

1. Of course the embryo is human, it's not an alligator.

2. My issue is not with humanity, it's with the soul. The arguement that the soul has nothing to do with life is bogus. Murder to most spiritual people is prematurely sending a soul away from this life, not just ending life like stepping on an ant, although there are some religions that believe that is a sin as well. I can understand them being pro life. But if you've ever killed a bug or germs then you are exempt from this philosophy.

3. I have no proof prooving the embryo has a soul immediatley following conception.


Other humans that do not share my faith, the only common ground that binds us is what we can proove. We can not proove that an embryo has a soul immediatley following conception.... therefore we have no plausible reason to call abortion murder... except through faith, which is not plausible when creating policy that everybody including non belivers will live under. Hopefully the woman faced with this decision will choose life... But it's HER DECISION, it effects her... we lack enough substatial evidence to make a law telling a woman what to do with her body.

Therefore, I will not blindly take up and fight for a cause under the pretenses of faith, because matters of faith are best handled by God, not by humans. I'm not about to go on a crusade... haven't we already learned that lesson? All I can do is pray and hope that God changes the heart of the women that decide to have an abortion. Otherwise I risk becomming a fundemental zealot no different than an terrorist.




[quote name='Aloysius' post='1135817' date='Dec 5 2006, 08:02 PM']
anyway, the analogy works to pro-choicers more by comparing them to nazi-sympathisers than to actual nazis. folks who agreed with the German government's right to choose to kill those persons. you agree with the woman's right to choose to kill what you admit to be a human person. that's the same thing as agreeing with any person's right to choose to kill another human person; and since you agree with allowing it on a wide scale it becomes as bad as agreeing with the nazi's choice of the holocaust.
[/quote]

The german people didn't even KNOW about the holocaust. People were black bagged. you just didn't see them again. If you talk to any german that lived through the holocaust you would find out that they were SHOCKED and DISGUSTED to learn of the concentration camps. Further more, those were human people that have lived life just as I have... making it possible for me to empathize with that situation. As I said we can't even proove that an embryo has a soul, much less is a conscious life form. can you remember when you were an embryo? Can you envision what it would be like to be aborted, just like you can imagine what it would be like to be starved and gassed to death?

It's a totally unviable analogy, it doesn't make sense philisophically, and it doesn't make sense historically. The only comparison to Nazi's I see is the demonization of people according to thier believes.

[quote name='avemaria40' post='1135931' date='Dec 5 2006, 09:26 PM']
If you're going to make that analogy, you might as well say that the German people were pro-choice since they turned a blind eye to everything, even though they might have been "personally against it"
[/quote]

They didn't turn a blind eye. It was hidden from them. Big difference.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1135972' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:31 PM']
Aloysius, we've been down this road before and we've already shared our views of the scenery.

Let me explain to you my principles yet again...

1. Of course the embryo is human, it's not an alligator. My issue is not with humanity, it's with the soul. murder to most spiritual people is prematurely sending a soul away from this life, not just ending life like stepping on an ant, although there are some religions that believe that is a sin as well. I can understand them being pro life. But if you've ever killed a bug or germs then you are exempt from this philosophy.[/quote]
Do you consider yourself Christian? Do you believe in a soul?
A soul is what gives a body life. (In Aristotelian/Thomistic terms, it is the [i]form[/i] of the body, but perhaps I'm jumping ahead of myself on the philosophy.)
If a human being is alive it has a soul.
The new human life begins at conception. The human embryo (which is a distinct organism from both the mother and the father) is alive from the moment of conception. Any honest biologist can tell you that. It is alive, it takes in nutrients, it grows, it develops. It is not a piece of dead matter.

And you've already agreed that the human embryo/fetus is indeed human. It is not an alligator, ant, or gnat. It is human and alive. If it did not have a soul, it would be already dead, so it could not be killed.

[quote]2. I have no proof prooving the embryo has a soul immediatley following conception.
Other humans that do not share my faith, the only common ground that binds us is what we can proove. We can not proove that an embryo has a soul immediatley following conception.... therefore we have no plausible reason to call abortion murder... except through faith, which is not plausible when creating policy that everybody including non belivers will live under.[/quote]
When do you think a human being does gain a soul? Are you saying that God gives it a soul just after exiting the mother's womb? If it did not have a soul before, how was the unborn baby kept alive?

And, according to you, how can we know that [i]anybody[/i] has a soul at any time in their life?? Is there some concrete proof you can offer that somebody "has a soul" and thus has a life worthy of legal protection? Or are we simply to snuff out a human being's life whenever it becomes inconvenient or burdensome to others?

[quote]Therefore, I will not blindly take up and fight for a cause under the pretenses of faith, because matters of faith are best handled by God, not by humans. I'm not about to go on a crusade... haven't we already learned that lesson?
The german people didn't even KNOW about the holocaust. People were black bagged. you just didn't see them again. If you talk to any german that lived through the holocaust you would find out that they were SHOCKED and DISGUSTED to learn of the concentration camps. It's totally an unviable analogy, it doesn't make sense philisophically, and it doesn't make sense historically. The only comparison to Nazi's I see is the demonization of people according to thier believes.
They didn't turn a blind eye. It was hidden from them. Big difference.[/quote]
Plenty of people ignore the realities of abortion. They refuse to look and are disgusted at pictures of aborted babies.

The comparison of abortion with the holocaust and slavery is that in all cases human beings were legally classified as "non-persons" in order to justify killing or denying human rights to them.

Edited December 6, 2006 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

The soul is the principal of life. Anything which is living has a soul. Animal and bug and bacterial souls are mortal souls, the end of their physical life is synonymous with the end of the life of their soul. The Christian belief is that a human soul is immortal and unique, and thus it is only the ending of human life which can be considered murder.

But anything which is admitted to be "alive" is automatically admitted to have a soul.

You have a dualist philosophy, as if the soul were something distinct from life. Lives and souls are the same thing. If you are alive, you have an animating force, "anima"="soul". if human life, human souls, are unique then ending any human life is evil.

but let's assume your faulty dualist logic and wonder at which point the soul is "infused" (of course, most modernity has completely disavowed this ghost-in-the-shell view and Judeo-Christianity itself has had a long struggle back and forth balancing between this type Platonic dualism and the Hebrew understanding which equates physical life with the soul). (St. Thomas Aquinas believed that the fetus started as a vegetable with a vegetable soul, then became an animal with an animal soul, and then became a human with a human soul; but that every stage it could be considered 'alive' it had an anima, a soul; just that the animal soul and vegetable soul did not make us necessarily have to respect its life... seing as we've already admitted its humanity based on modern science, this is a non-issue)

let's list a few of the most likely possibilities:
conception
implantation
first heart beat
birth
first breath

the first three all occur prior to most abortions. There is a time line posted somewhere on one of these threads, I dont feel like finding it.

philosophically speaking, if we are to consider an infusing of the soul as the infusion of the substance of being, we ought to look for the most substantive change. the moment of conception, I would argue, is the most substantive change. it goes from a state of two cells: one cell part of the life of the man and one cell part of the life of the woman, the destruction of either one would not end the human life that they are part of; into being one unique new embryo with a unique genetic code and all the information it needs right down to the eye color.

but to give credence to a couple of the others: the first heart beat is probably one of the most important things. the end of life is often cited with the end of the heartbeat (though a heart can be re-started)

the first breath doesn't make sense to me: that would require breathing as causing one to have a soul... and everytime I held my breath I would cease to have a soul I propose. the end of breath is not really a proper end-of-life; nor can breath be considered a proper beginning of life.

birth causes no substantive change.

but most of all, I would argue against the ghost-in-the-shell dualism. Anything that is alive has a soul, that's what soul means-- life force. Anything that is human and alive therefore has a human soul. Anything which has a unique genetic code is a unique human (skin cells are part of one particular human, even sperm and egg cells are part of one particular human. once the sperm and egg are together, however, it is a total unique human person the destruction of which is the destruction of a total unique human life.

people die at all stages of developement for all sorts of natural reasons. that some embryos do not make it does not disqualify them from being uniquely alive humans.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
Do you consider yourself Christian? Do you believe in a soul?
A soul is what gives a body life. (In Aristotelian/Thomistic terms, it is the [i]form[/i] of the body, but perhaps I'm jumping ahead of myself on the philosophy.)
If a human being is alive it has a soul.
The new human life begins at conception. The human embryo (which is a distinct organism from both the mother and the father) is alive from the moment of conception. Any honest biologist can tell you that. It is alive, it takes in nutrients, it grows, it develops. It is not a piece of dead matter.[/quote]

That's not proof... that's a theory, a philosophy. It's not something that can be substantiated with physical evidence. One could also argue that the embryo at that stage is also a parisite, because it needs the woman as a host to live.

Yes I am christian. Of course I believe in a soul. But those are MY beliefs, not the world's. I render on to ceaser what is his and I pray in a closet.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
And you've already agreed that the human embryo/fetus is indeed human. It is not an alligator, ant, or gnat. It is human and alive. If it did not have a soul, it would be already dead, so it could not be killed.
When do you think a human being does gain a soul? Are you saying that God gives it a soul just after exiting the mother's womb? If it did not have a soul before, how was the unborn baby kept alive?[/quote]

I don't KNOW when a human gets his soul. Nobody does... I refuse to speculate on it and allow a policy/Law to be created with such a permeable foundation.

Do you think cells have a soul? Does a tree have a soul? they are alive are they not? have you even pulled weeds from your garden? Have you ever had an operation that purposley killed some of your cells? I believe that just because somehting is alive does not necessarily mean it has a soul. There is no proof substantiating that to be true or false, because you cannot scientifically proove the soul to exist... that has to be taken upon faith at the moment. But even if you do believe those living organizims have a soul... then you would be a hypocrite for pressing for this type of legislation.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
And, according to you, how can we know that [i]anybody[/i] has a soul at any time in their life?? Is there some concrete proof you can offer that somebody "has a soul" and thus has a life worthy of legal protection? Or are we simply to snuff out a human being's life whenever it becomes inconvenient or burdensome to others?
Plenty of people ignore the realities of abortion. They refuse to look and are disgusted at pictures of aborted babies. [/quote]

The ability to empathize. Putting yourself in somebody elses shoes is my proof of a soul. I can empathize with any child or adult. I cannot empathize with an embryo.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
The comparison of abortion with the holocaust and slavery is that in all cases human beings were legally classified as "non-persons" in order to justify killing or denying human rights to them.
[/quote]

wrong... The Nazi's justification for killing Jews was outright HATRED. Not writing them off as soulless... The nazi's believed the Jews to be outright evil and a cancer to the human race that needed to be removed. As I said the analogy comparing pro choicers to nazi's is just outright antisemetic.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136017' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:09 PM']
The soul is the principal of life. Anything which is living has a soul. Animal and bug and bacterial souls are mortal souls, the end of their physical life is synonymous with the end of the life of their soul. The Christian belief is that a human soul is immortal and unique, and thus it is only the ending of human life which can be considered murder.

But anything which is admitted to be "alive" is automatically admitted to have a soul.

You have a dualist philosophy, as if the soul were something distinct from life. Lives and souls are the same thing. If you are alive, you have an animating force, "anima"="soul". if human life, human souls, are unique then ending any human life is evil.

but let's assume your faulty dualist logic and wonder at which point the soul is "infused" (of course, most modernity has completely disavowed this ghost-in-the-shell view and Judeo-Christianity itself has had a long struggle back and forth balancing between this type Platonic dualism and the Hebrew understanding which equates physical life with the soul). (St. Thomas Aquinas believed that the fetus started as a vegetable with a vegetable soul, then became an animal with an animal soul, and then became a human with a human soul; but that every stage it could be considered 'alive' it had an anima, a soul; just that the animal soul and vegetable soul did not make us necessarily have to respect its life... seing as we've already admitted its humanity based on modern science, this is a non-issue)

let's list a few of the most likely possibilities:
conception
implantation
first heart beat
birth
first breath

the first three all occur prior to most abortions. There is a time line posted somewhere on one of these threads, I dont feel like finding it.

philosophically speaking, if we are to consider an infusing of the soul as the infusion of the substance of being, we ought to look for the most substantive change. the moment of conception, I would argue, is the most substantive change. it goes from a state of two cells: one cell part of the life of the man and one cell part of the life of the woman, the destruction of either one would not end the human life that they are part of; into being one unique new embryo with a unique genetic code and all the information it needs right down to the eye color.

but to give credence to a couple of the others: the first heart beat is probably one of the most important things. the end of life is often cited with the end of the heartbeat (though a heart can be re-started)

the first breath doesn't make sense to me: that would require breathing as causing one to have a soul... and everytime I held my breath I would cease to have a soul I propose. the end of breath is not really a proper end-of-life; nor can breath be considered a proper beginning of life.

birth causes no substantive change.

but most of all, I would argue against the ghost-in-the-shell dualism. Anything that is alive has a soul, that's what soul means-- life force. Anything that is human and alive therefore has a human soul. Anything which has a unique genetic code is a unique human (skin cells are part of one particular human, even sperm and egg cells are part of one particular human. once the sperm and egg are together, however, it is a total unique human person the destruction of which is the destruction of a total unique human life.

people die at all stages of developement for all sorts of natural reasons. that some embryos do not make it does not disqualify them from being uniquely alive humans.
[/quote]

I don't have any philosophy. I don't KNOW when a soul enters the body... there is NO CONCRETE PROOF. You can quote all of the philisophical writings you want man... it's all theoretical.

[Aloysius]

basically, you don't understand what a soul is. your version of what a soul is would be laughed out of academia very quickly, because it's a ghost-in-the-shell dualist idea which modern psychology is very confident in itself having demolished any such concept.

the soul is what makes something be alive. if it is alive, it has a soul. if it is human, it has a human soul. if it is the totality of a unique human with unique DNA, then keeping it alive will keep a human alive; and killing it would kill a human.

[quote name='JClives' post='1136046' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:38 PM']
I don't have any philosophy. I don't KNOW when a soul enters the body... there is NO CONCRETE PROOF. You can quote all of the philisophical writings you want man... it's all theoretical.
[/quote]
the soul does not enter the body. the body and the soul are united. if there is a live human body, there is a human soul.

you have a philosophy whether you know it or not: and your philosophy is extremely dualist... as if the body and the soul are two different things with two different beginnings. this concept is not in line with modern science or most good philosophies, especially judeo-Christian philosophies.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136053' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:44 PM']
basically, you don't understand what a soul is. your version of what a soul is would be laughed out of academia very quickly, because it's a ghost-in-the-shell dualist idea which modern psychology is very confident in itself having demolished any such concept.

the soul is what makes something be alive. if it is alive, it has a soul. if it is human, it has a human soul. if it is the totality of a unique human with unique DNA, then keeping it alive will keep a human alive; and killing it would kill a human.
the soul does not enter the body. the body and the soul are united. if there is a live human body, there is a human soul.

you have a philosophy whether you know it or not: and your philosophy is extremely dualist... as if the body and the soul are two different things with two different beginnings. this concept is not in line with modern science or most good philosophies, especially judeo-Christian philosophies.
[/quote]

so then when you die your soul is dead? that makes no sense what so ever. The soul has to be seperate from the body if you believe in heaven.

[Aloysius]

the human soul is immortal. animal souls are not necessarily (no need to debate that here if you disagree, as it would be a red herring, somehow unless you're a vegan you justify killing animals in a way which would not justify killing humans and that's the only point I need to make in this argument). when the body dies, the soul is unnaturally seperated from the body until the end of time when the body will be re-made and re-joined with the soul.

the soul gives life to the body. once the body dies, the soul lives on without the body.

every body that is alive has a soul (a life force); not every soul that is alive has a body.

of course, we are talking about matters of public policy and therefore need to step back from discussing the afterlife, a religious belief, and continue to talk primarily about human life and when it needs to be protection. the philosophical understanding of the soul apart from any belief in the afterlife is believed from any perspective, from the faithful Christians to the godless atheists. a body is alive, its life-principal is what is called by religious folks a "soul", but by non-religious folks probably just its life principal, or the fact that it's alive, or whatever they want to call it. the fact remains that if you accept the two presuppositions 1) that the embryo is a unique human and 2) that it is alive; then it is a human person worthy of protection; and if you want to talk about souls-- the fact that it is alive proves it has a soul if you properly understand what a soul is...

the point is: it's not a religious question at this point. there is a unique human person in existence, no other human person has the right to end that unique human person's life.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136104' date='Dec 6 2006, 12:07 AM']
the human soul is immortal. animal souls are not necessarily (no need to debate that here if you disagree, as it would be a red herring, somehow unless you're a vegan you justify killing animals in a way which would not justify killing humans and that's the only point I need to make in this argument). when the body dies, the soul is unnaturally seperated from the body until the end of time when the body will be re-made and re-joined with the soul.

the soul gives life to the body. once the body dies, the soul lives on without the body.

every body that is alive has a soul (a life force); not every soul that is alive has a body.

of course, we are talking about matters of public policy and therefore need to step back from discussing the afterlife, a religious belief, and continue to talk primarily about human life and when it needs to be protection. the philosophical understanding of the soul apart from any belief in the afterlife is believed from any perspective, from the faithful Christians to the godless atheists. a body is alive, its life-principal is what is called by religious folks a "soul", but by non-religious folks probably just its life principal, or the fact that it's alive, or whatever they want to call it. the fact remains that if you accept the two presuppositions 1) that the embryo is a unique human and 2) that it is alive; then it is a human person worthy of protection; and if you want to talk about souls-- the fact that it is alive proves it has a soul if you properly understand what a soul is...

the point is: it's not a religious question at this point. there is a unique human person in existence, no other human person has the right to end that unique human person's life.
[/quote]

Aloysius I actually like that philosophy. it makes a lot of sense and is very enlightening. But let's get back on topic here for a second. you can't base a mortal law upon supernatural philosophy. America has freedom of religion. Americans have the freedom to choose what they want to do. that philospophy no matter how much I like it or no matter how much sense it makes... it cannot be proven with tangible evidence. it is still a theory and therefore cannot have laws created off of it.

[Aloysius]

it's a great thing when dialogue actually goes somewhere and people can learn by discussion even when they still don't agree on many issues

anyway: that's just the thing-- law shouldn't be made on some concept of when the "soul" is "infused" into the body: that would be a religious concept.

law should be made to protect any unique living human person from any other human person.

legal philosophy 101: no human being has the legal right to end another human being's life (except in self defence). you have admitted life and humanity are qualities of the fetus; therefore the law ought to protect it.

the only legal justification would be to attempt to call it un-human (seeing as it has a unique human genetic code, this does not hold up) or not alive (when it is clearly alive)

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1136032' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:22 PM']
That's not proof... that's a theory, a philosophy. It's not something that can be substantiated with physical evidence. One could also argue that the embryo at that stage is also a parisite, because it needs the woman as a host to live.[/quote]
Well, you've claimed that the reason it is wrong to kill people is because of their soul.

Can you offer concrete [i]physical[/i] evidence that you or any other person has a soul? And a year-old child is also dependent on others to live? Is it also a "parasite"?

[quote]Yes I am christian. Of course I believe in a soul. But those are MY beliefs, not the world's. I render on to ceaser what is his and I pray in a closet.
I don't KNOW when a human gets his soul. Nobody does... I refuse to speculate on it and allow a policy/Law to be created with such a permeable foundation. [/quote]
Well, if you're Christian, the Apostles were not afraid to go out and evangelize all nations. They certainly didn't keep their Faith hidden under a bushel basket, nor in a closet! And we are called to be in the world, not of the world. Learn the Bible before you try to refer to it.

If we don't know when anybody "gets their soul," does that mean we should be allowed to just kill anybody, since (according to you) we can never know for certain whether anyone "has a soul"?


[quote]Do you think cells have a soul? Does a tree have a soul? they are alive are they not? have you even pulled weeds from your garden? Have you ever had an operation that purposley killed some of your cells? I believe that just because somehting is alive does not necessarily mean it has a soul. There is no proof substantiating that to be true or false, because you cannot scientifically proove the soul to exist... that has to be taken upon faith at the moment. But even if you do believe those living organizims have a soul... then you would be a hypocrite for pressing for this type of legislation.[/quote]
They have non-rational animal or vegetative souls which do not survive death. (Sorry I don't have time to go into all the philosophy now). We believe the human soul is rational and immortal, and that human life is more valuable and worthy of protection than lower forms of life.

[quote]The ability to empathize. Putting yourself in somebody elses shoes is my proof of a soul. I can empathize with any child or adult. I cannot empathize with an embryo..[/quote]
You're setting up your own subjective feelings as the basis of a right to life here. Maybe some hateful bigots can't emphasize with blacks or Jews or some other people. Maybe some people can't empaphize with you. Maybe I can't empaphize with anybody.
While maybe some sensitive souls can empahize with kittens and puppy dogs and trees and insects. You've proven nothing objective here.

[quote]wrong... The Nazi's justification for killing Jews was outright HATRED. Not writing them off as soulless... The nazi's believed the Jews to be outright evil and a cancer to the human race that needed to be removed. As I said the analogy comparing pro choicers to nazi's is just outright antisemetic[/quote]
So as long as we declare the killers are not motivated by "outright hate" it's alright to kill other human beings? (And how can we read minds and determine everyone's inner motivation anyway?)

You're missing my point - they both declared human-beings "non-persons" to justify killing them.