The GOP and the man-god Trump.

[oxmixmudd]

Look, this isn't even an issue that takes time and study to reason out. Scripture couldn't be any clearer on this point. You say that science has proven that there is no person without a brain, but it really hasn't, because science simply and somewhat arbitrarily equates brain activity with personhood. Is there some essence of a person's being that exists prior to formation of the brain and which is currently undetectable to us? I would say, based on what the Bible says, that the answer is yes.

This is a good example of the dangers of allowing science to dictate your understanding of scripture, because science is necessarily limited by only what can be directly observed, and you as Christian should know that there is a lot more to the universe then only what we can see and hear.

You are not understanding the parameters i'm framing my arguments within. This discussion began with a discussion about what science can show about when personhood begins. Rogue argues that the continuity of the development process allows for no distinction between any stage of development in terms of this being a person. I'm arguing that scientifically what aspects of personhood it can measure can be shown quite conclusively to reside in the brain. So without a living brain, scientifically, there is no person - just a body.

Your arguments are outside what science can show. That there is some sort of supernatural (and thus immeasurable by scientific means) spirit that is distinct from the brain. And while that is what we both believe, it is not part of a debate over what science can show.

Beyond that, we have different understandings of the implications of the verses you quote as to what they imply about when a developing child becomes a living soul. And that is a theological debate that has spanned millenia. But there is nothing that says science can't help inform us on that quest to understand that which simply is not clearly defined in scripture.

It is my belief and has been from the first day I read the verses in exodus from a less politically derived NASV translation of them that there is a distinction between the unborn and the born, the unformed and the fully formed fetus Where God clearly and unequivocally recognizes that the accidental killing of an unborn, not fully formed child is not the equivalent of the accidental killing of a fully formed child or adult.

And I believe science supports that Biblical distinction.

OtOH, I firmly and unequivocally believe this distinction does not justify abortion on demand as birth control ( or 'family planning')- but it should temper our argumentation on the subject.

[firstfloor]

One of the silly things about formal logic is that a "true" conclusion can result from absurd premises.

Do you mean that the conclusion of a deductive argument, contains no greater information than its premises? If so, what’s silly about that? An example of what you mean would be helpful.

[NorrinRadd]

Which is to say that an argument can be valid without being sound.

Or as the Doctor once said, "Logic, my dear Zoe, merely allows one to be wrong with authority."

I have.... hmm... had?... haven't seen it lately... this:

87ab7d04-8cfb-4e44-bf1c-f8c32dd8b400_1.7a16a0567b269a8c7450b30553133677.jpeg?odnHeight=612&odnWidth=612&odnBg=FFFFFF.jpg

[firstfloor]

Yup, spooky thinking leads to bad law, which leads to unintended consequences.

Millions of Texas women and the people who support them, including health care providers and faith leaders, are living in fear and danger after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed Texas’ S.B. 8 to go into effect this week. S.B. 8 turns neighbor against neighbor by allowing any individual to sue anyone else whom they believe provided or assisted a patient with an abortion, and collect $10,000 for each successful claim. Under this law, my friend’s enraged partner, who tried to physically block us from leaving her home, could have bankrupted me.

When we reward anger and punish accompaniment, we ignore God’s condemnation of those who sow discord (Proverbs 6:19) and disregard the Gospel’s call to love our neighbor. While anti-abortion lawmakers often cloak their positions in Christian faith, S.B. 8 is theologically unsound.

Rev. Jennifer Butler

[CivilDiscourse]

Yup, spooky thinking leads to bad law, which leads to unintended consequences.

Rev. Jennifer Butler

That isn't unintended. The angry boyfriend suing her into bankruptcy is actually an intended consequence. Thats why they allow you to sue anyone who assists.

[rogue06]

For all practical purposes, she does own the swallowed ring, at least temporarily.

At absolutely no time does she "own" it. She is unlawfully possessing it. Yuuuge difference.

The foetus is totally connected, contiguous and dependant, there by the woman’s grace and beneficence. Nobody has a greater claim on the foetus than the expectant mother.

You make it sound like the baby asked to be sheltered and out of the kindness of her heart the expecting mother agreed to take him or her in. No. The woman engaged in a behavior that anyone with at least two working brain cells (don't take that personally) understands can very well result in producing a baby.

[rogue06]

not so fast ….

Not so fast. The scenario specifically stated that she stole the ring. Therefore there is no question that she does not have a claim of ownership.

[rogue06]

Would you really want a poor, undernourished, unloved, unwanted child to grow up in a country ruled by religious laws?

Are you getting ready to justify killing children in some Third World Country wholesale? Because that's what it sounds like.

[Mountain Man]

You are not understanding the parameters i'm framing my arguments within. This discussion began with a discussion about what science can show about when personhood begins. Rogue argues that the continuity of the development process allows for no distinction between any stage of development in terms of this being a person. I'm arguing that scientifically what aspects of personhood it can measure can be shown quite conclusively to reside in the brain. So without a living brain, scientifically, there is no person - just a body.

Your arguments are outside what science can show. That there is some sort of supernatural (and thus immeasurable by scientific means) spirit that is distinct from the brain. And while that is what we both believe, it is not part of a debate over what science can show.

Beyond that, we have different understandings of the implications of the verses you quote as to what they imply about when a developing child becomes a living soul. And that is a theological debate that has spanned millenia. But there is nothing that says science can't help inform us on that quest to understand that which simply is not clearly defined in scripture.

It is my belief and has been from the first day I read the verses in exodus from a less politically derived NASV translation of them that there is a distinction between the unborn and the born, the unformed and the fully formed fetus Where God clearly and unequivocally recognizes that the accidental killing of an unborn, not fully formed child is not the equivalent of the accidental killing of a fully formed child or adult.

And I believe science supports that Biblical distinction.

OtOH, I firmly and unequivocally believe this distinction does not justify abortion on demand as birth control ( or 'family planning')- but it should temper our argumentation on the subject.

When scripture and science conflict, always go with scripture. God tells us that he knew us before we were conceived. As far as I'm concerned, that settles the debate regardless of your belief that science disproves the Bible on this point.

Also, if your reading of the passage in Exodus is correct, then you have no grounds whatsoever to object to abortion on demand as birth control. The fact that such a conclusion clearly galls you should be a hint that you're probably not reading the passage correctly.

[firstfloor]

Not so fast. The scenario specifically stated that she stole the ring. Therefore there is no question that she does not have a claim of ownership.

Stop thief! … she stole my ring!
Gulp …. Burp
What ring?
Er ah!

In the USA, this situation would immediately be followed by a gunfight, the ring would turn up at the autopsy and be returned to the deceased’s next of kin - not the real owner who also got blasted to death.

[firstfloor]

At absolutely no time does she "own" it. She is unlawfully possessing it. Yuuuge difference.


You make it sound like the baby asked to be sheltered and out of the kindness of her heart the expecting mother agreed to take him or her in. No. The woman engaged in a behavior that anyone with at least two working brain cells (don't take that personally) understands can very well result in producing a baby.

I’m not talking babies at all - air breathing primates are they. Uninvited womb guests - a parasite perhaps, an unexploded bomb - is the issue - not that you are at all able to handle that idea - because you lack empathy and sympathy for someone in that position - so you blame them instead.

[Cow Poke]

I’m not talking babies at all - air breathing primates are they. Uninvited womb guests - a parasite perhaps, an unexploded bomb - is the issue - not that you are at all able to handle that idea - because you lack empathy and sympathy for someone in that position - so you blame them instead.

Perhaps you should talk ask mommy how these "uninvited guests" end up in the womb.

[firstfloor]

Perhaps you should talk ask mommy how these "uninvited guests" end up in the womb.

It makes no difference how. There is no point in crying over spilt milk. Clear headed practical decisions are wanted, not blame or shame - an unhelpful religious speciality in these cases.

[oxmixmudd]

When scripture and science conflict, always go with scripture.

If our pride and arrogance did not cause us to confuse our understanding of scipture with what the scripture actually teaches, that would be a valid way to go. But the reality is, the scriptures are written in a specific cultural context and we have, historically, gotten the intended meaning wrong. From the Jewish Pharasees that rejected Christ and did not recognize the scriptures that spoke of a suffering servant to the arguments the RCC used against Galileo to our present day confusion WRT the validity of dismissing science against a literal reading of Genesis - we have gotten it wrong.

So the very first thing to do when solid science conflicts with what we think scripture is saying is to look at the weakest link in the chain - human error and understanding. Which applies BOTH to human efforts at science AND human efforts at understanding scripture.

God tells us that he knew us before we were conceived. As far as I'm concerned, that settles the debate regardless of your belief that science disproves the Bible on this point.

And here we are dealing with an actual failure on your part to understand what is being said by scripture - ironically enough. If God knows us BEFORE we were conceived, then it cant possibly be defining when we came to be. The scripture is telling us God is outside time and knows who we are from the beginning of time. He knows if we will survive gestation. He knows how we will grow up and who we will become. He knows when and how we will die. It is also telling us that this infinite God that defines the entire universe cares just as infinitely about who and what we are. But it says nothing about when from the standpoint of our finite and temporal existence we came to be.

Also, if your reading of the passage in Exodus is correct, then you have no grounds whatsoever to object to abortion on demand as birth control. The fact that such a conclusion clearly galls you should be a hint that you're probably not reading the passage correctly.

And I believe you are mistaken here again, because the simple reality is that the Early Church Fathers recognized that passage as saying exactly what AFAIK all pre Abortion debate translations said, and they still argued vociferously against abortion with valid and justifiable cause. That passage does NOT say the unborn child is trash to be tossed at the whim of the mother. It simply says the accidental killing of the unborn child does not rise to murder and thus does not deserve life for a life. The argument against abortion goes to the value of the potential of that child to be, and the utter depravity of destroying it for purely material of hedonistic pleasure or convenience. It does not hinge on whether or not aborting the child is murder.

[Mountain Man]

If our pride and arrogance did not cause us to confuse our understanding of scipture with what the scripture actually says, that would be a valid way to go. But the reality is, the scriptures are written in a specific cultural context and we have, historically, gotten the intended meaning wrong. From the Jewish Pharasees that rejected Christ and did not recognize the scriptures that spoke of a suffering servant to the arguments the RCC used against Galileo to our present day confusion WRT the validity of dismissing science against a literal reading of Genesis we have gotten it wrong.

So the very first thing to do when solid science conflicts with what we think scripture is saying is to look at the weakest link in the chain - human error and understanding. Which applies BOTH to human efforts at science AND human efforts at understanding scripture.



And here we are dealing failure on your part to understand what is being said. If God knows us BEFORE we were conceived, then it cant possibly be defining when we came to be. The scripture is telling us God is outside time and knows who we are from the beginning of time. He knows if we will survive gestation. He knows how we will grow up and who we will become. He knows when and how we will die. It says nothing about when from the standpoint of our finite and temporal existence we came to be.



And I believe you are mistaken here again, because the simple reality is that the Early Church Fathers recognized that passage as saying exactly what AFAIK all pre Abortion debate translations said, and they still argued vociferously against abortion with valid and justifiable cause. That passage does NOT say the unborn child is trash to be tossed at the whim of the mother. It simply says the accidental killing of the unborn child does no rise to murder and thus does not deserve life for a life. The argument against abortion goes to the value of the potential of that child to be, and the utter depravity of destroying it for purely material of hedonistic pleasure or convenience.

You can object to the necessary implications of your position all you want, but they nevertheless remain necessary implications. If your understanding of science and scripture are correct, then you simply have no grounds to object to abortion on demand. The fact that this appears to grate against your conscience (and frankly, I'm glad it does) is your problem, not mine. I've shown you the way out of your moral dilemma. You have only to open your eyes and follow the path.