I watched my cousins get practically socially destroyed by homeschooling
This sounds like a friend of mine. He was pulled out of school at one point, and homeschooled. However, I think the transition wasn't handled well. It wasn't the homeschooling, it was the feelings engendered by the massive change that weren't dealt with.
Clearly, there will be no consensus here because we are working from different definitions of the word "Chrstian."
Certainly. My point is precisely that we have no consensus. Your doctrines are logically incompatible with Christian doctrines. And I am not trying to dispute the truth of either set of beliefs, only pointing out that they are disjoint.
The link to the byu site works fine for me. As for the author:
'This material is taken from various teachings of Joseph Smith and much of the content is expanded in the book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder," by the late Elder Legrand Richards.'
Do you regard Richards and Smith as unreliable?
I do have to address the worst fallacy: Yes, God did create us.
Well, not according to the Book of Abraham, which, unless I am mistaken, is a part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price.
In Abraham 3, God is explaining creation to Abraham. In 3:16, he is showing Abraham how spirits, though different in intelligence, are of the same nature. He notes that: '..yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.'
So, spirits are eternal. They have no beginning. So, they cannot have been created by God. And Joseph Smith explicitly taught this.
As Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:
'eternity means that which is without beginning or end . . . I believe that the soul is eternal and had no beginning; it can have no end' (from an account of Smith's discourse on April 7, 1844, by Thomas Bullock)
and
'that God never had power to create the Spirit of Man at all--God himself could not create himself-- intelligence is self existent it is a spirit from age to end & there is no creation about it.' (Bullock, ibid)
Is Joseph Smith a "whacko"(your term)? Yet, his beliefs do coincide with Abraham 3.
Abraham 3 also explicits teaches that the premortal spirits of Lucifer and Christ are of the same nature(Abraham 3:22-28).
In your conclusion, you seem to assert the fact that you celebrate holidays, etc. I would assume that this is because you think I am confusing you with JWs. I am not. I know several Mormons. They are quite nice, and we did indeed work together. I am not, and have not, doubted or disparaged the ethics or morals of Mormons. This has no bearing, however, on whether Christian and Mormon doctrines are contradictory. They are.
The Webster definition would certainly include Islam(after all, they believe that Christ was a prophet), so I would say that a more strict definition is needed than that. I would be inclined to present the Apostle's Creed as a good foundation, having never met a Christian who would deny it. Can you affirm the Apostle's Creed, as understood by orthodox Christians(Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox)?
The very idea of the total apostasy is a denial of the veracity of Christian beliefs. The LDS makes no bones about the fact that foundational Christian doctrines(such as the Trinity, the nature of the Father, creation "ex nihilo", etc) are gross heresies.
Your idea that a belief in the divinity of Christ unites us ignores the fact that we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of "divinity."
Want some examples? I would start by pointing you to the LDS website:
"We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know. . . . ", M. Russell Ballard
Notice that that is from the LDS website, not exactly a hostile source.
' Latter-day Saints do not believe in the philosophical constructs or thinking of scholars, ancient or modern, in regard to God.'
In a nutshell, the LDS does not believe in Christian concepts of God.
'The Godhead consists of Three Persons, not of the same "substance" but of the same purpose, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.'
Whether right or wrong, this is in exact contradiction to the Christian belief of the Trinity.
'He is a corporeal being possessing a body of flesh and bone, human in form and once lived as a mortal man on a world of the same pattern as the earth upon which we now live.'
A distinct difference from orthodox Christian doctrine, which holds that the Father is a spirit only, and certainly never experienced life in the same pattern as earth.
Of course, you also run into the problem of the claim that we are not created by God:
'...for God did not create us, but by his grace, we are offered the possibility of greater happiness.'
And, the belief that Christ and Lucifer are spirit brothers can be found in the section "Mortal Life" and the section "The Son" in the second reference:
"He(Christ) is the example in all things for the other spirit children of God the Father."(emphasis mine)
"Among the many spirit children of God who had great influence in premortal life was one called Lucifer."
That logically leads to the belief that Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. This is different from the Christian belief that Christ is not of the same nature as Satan. Rather, Satan is a created being(another divergence), subservient in nature and existence to Christ.
I applaud you for your willingness to work alongside others, but that doesn't negate the fact that your beliefs directly and forcefully contradict those of Christians. Even without worrying about which one is correct, it is clear that they are divergent.
The beliefs of Mormons are sufficiently different from orthodox Christianity to be considered a different religion. For example, the belief that the Father was an human(or human- like) being is radically non-Christian. Not to mention the belief that Jesus and Lucifer are "spirit brothers." There are many, many problems with declaring LDS as Christian.
In fact, if you consider Christian beliefs to be vague enough that the LDS would fit, you would probably also have to consider Islam to be a form of Christianity, due to their beliefs about Christ.
This is not meant as an insult, just an observation. The two belief systems(Christianity and Mormonism) simply do not match.
"None of the Christian texts you quote are Church canon."
Great. That is relevant how? Feel free to show me Church canon that OK's abortion. You won't find it. In fact, the only actual evidence you will find is a universal condemnation of the act. But, feel free to link to Church canon and prove me wrong.
"You see, such definitions are all arbitrary."
Well, if you really believe this, prove it. Prevent yourself from, say, respirating on a cellular level. Or maintaining homeostasis. After a few minutes, your corpse would prove my point more eloquently than I ever could.
"Technically each living cell is life, yet we don't generally think of it that way."
Really? I have never met anyone who would accept a transplant of, say, dead tissue.
"*It's all arbitrary*, a matter of opinion and speculation and semantics, not of fact."
I'll grant that your reasoning is arbitrary, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is, at one point in time, the generation of a new member of the human race, with a complete and unique set of genes. The moment is conception.
Of course, if it really is all arbitrary, then what is to stop someone in power from classifying you as non- human, you overgrown skin sack of cellular goo?
"I have respect for human life."
Your words deny it. If I respect the spotted owl, I don't engage in or promote activities that have a chance of killing it. If I respect an artist, I don't act in ways that might destroy his works.
"Populations are approaching zero population growth in most developed nations, and are on decline in a few."
Not according to the UN, which claims that 57 countries have a fertility rate below that of the replacement level here. That would be a negative population growth, not zero. And it scares the hell out of people who realize the full implications. Feel free to read the links.
"where they can drive down the payscales"
Oh, I am sorry. I keep forgetting that money and land ownership are more important that human lives. I'll try to keep that in mind.
"I'm sorry that you're one of those pathetic souls who cannot see sexuality for what it is--one of God's greatest gifts to man."
Actually, I see sexuality in such a positive light that I can't bring myself to treat it as a recreational activity. Especially to the point of killing any children who inconveniently pop up afterwards. I have two sons, with another son or daughter on the way. I didn't get them by kissing. In fact, I dare say I have a much greater appreciation for it than you. In my eyes, it is part of being the image of God. It is a unity so real that 9 months later you might be giving it a name. It is an opportunity to join in creating a new immortal soul. Read some of Pope John Paul II's theology of the body, to hear from someone else who has a really high opinion of sex.
"it should definitely be enjoyed when the opportunity and the mood presents itself"
Despite the fact that casual sex can kill or permanently infect you with something nasty. Despite the fact that you may be put into the position of cooperating in the murder of your own child. I'll say it again. Pathetic.
"You are selfish in wanting to push yopur own personal moral and religious views on a majority who clearly disagree with you."
If it is selfish to want to stop the gruesome murder of children, then, yes, I am selfish. Selfish as all get out. I selfishly reject your supposed right to tear a baby apart for convenience. And, frankly, it matters little what the ratio of pro- life vs. pro- abortion is. It was still wrong to kill a black man in the pre- Civil War South. It was still wrong to kill a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is still wrong to kill a baby in Nazi America.
"prove to me it's human."
Well, I would first argue that we should err on the side of prudence, and not kill something that even MAY be a human. But I digress.
"define humanity"
A member of the human race.
"Then tell me at what point, exactly, that bunch of cells becomes a human life"
Fertilization.
"prove why that is"
An observable biological fact. An oyster begets oysters. A wolf begets wolves. A human begets...(brace yourself)...a human.
"Hard science is often used to bak-up such positions, but hard cvience just as easily backs up the other positions, too--since it's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact."
Well, go ahead and try. Demonstrate that the basic definition of life is arbitrary by removing some aspect of it from yourself.
First off, violent sexual attack very rarely results in pregnancy. Even if one were to allow it in those circumstances, you still have thousands of abortions a day to justify. So, this sidebar is a red herring.
'The whole point of pro-choice is not "baby murder should be legal" but rather "a woman should control her body."'
Certainly. Control your body. Your baby, however, is not part of your body.
"certainly no one should be forced into it against their will."
Agreed. But who did the forcing? The aggressor who committed the crime. They should be held permanently accountable, and forced to provide financially for that child. Killing the child solves nothing.
"Men who have many sexual partners are seen as cool."
Funny, I only see examples of this chauvinism in people who embrace abortion anyway. I wonder if there's a connection?
I fail to see how prostitution and pot smoking play into this.
"why isn't more effort put into feeding people?"
Hmm, I look at the people who are actually in the gutters doing something about hunger, like Mother Theresa did, and I find people who understand the value of human life, and don't condone abortion. Funny how they go together.
Because I watched my son play. Literally. It was very clear, and very amusing. And it would have been very legal to kill him at that moment. And that is very wrong.
"Now, if gene therapy changes those genes, what am I?"
You're a person with repaired genes.
"it is the person bit that we need to protect, not the human bit."
Assuming, of course, that you can seperate them even in the cases(exlcuding AI and aliens) that you mentioned. Which I don't agree with.
Actually, most states have been enacting laws that make it illegal to prevent you from bringing your baby to class. So, I would look into your specific state laws to see what rights you have in this area. Secondly, I would look into a) grants and b) local groups to help with funding. Things like Pell grants may fully cover your tuition. There may be other assistance programs which could help. You might also look into local groups, such as churches(if you so inclined) or local civic organizations. They often offer scholarships to people in need. And, if your school has a teaching program for preschool teachers or something of the like, you can often get a much reduced rate for child care. And your college may have a dedicated child care facility already. Finally, judging from your second sentence, your husband needs an attitude adjustment in the area of "priorities."
Good luck with college. It's hard work, but it is worth it.
"Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?"
What? How can you have an exception to a non- existant rule? Do you mean to ask if I would allow those cases? No, I would not.
"Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life?"
A red herring. How many of the estimated 4000 abortions a day do you think meet this criteria? Virtually none, in this age of modern medicine.
"It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job."
Thank you.
"Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?"
And so, the answer is to kill the children? I fail to grasp this concept. You don't think that maybe addressing the problem(changing the lazy, ignorant and selfish mindsets, which will improve life beyond this issue as well) is preferable to slapping a band-aid of legalized murder on the symptom?
"What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception?"
Aside from the issue of a state's compelling interest in seeing its citizens not torn to pieces, you still have the fact that the right to life is the central tenet of a democratic society. That is why the Declaration of Independence affirms right off the bat that
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The right to life is presupposed in every other right. Corpses don't have rights. Some of us have this thing against letting aggressors make those weaker than them into corpses. And we also recognize that once the principle of the inherent worth of a human is discarded, all human life becomes meat to be disposed of as the ruling power sees fit.
"why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools?"
Maybe because the same people who embrace the culture of death run the schools. It's easier to schedule an abortion than teach responsibility.
"Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?"
They should be.
"If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages?"
Perhaps you have trouble reading English, and so were unable to make the connection between my quotes, and the previous message wherein it was claimed that Christians at some point accepted abortion. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to this particular issue. It doesn't take theology to be able to quote a historical document.
And, you are wrong on at least two points. Yes, God exists. And, yes, Santa Claus exists(or did). Not the stupid secular version, of course, but a real man nonetheless.
So, the absense of a perceptable personality dictates the humanity of an individual? Even if one were to buy this, watching a sonagram would show you plenty of evidence of personality, long before it is illegal to kill the baby.
"Such a child might not be technically human"
Let's do some gene therapy on you. Do you think, say, removing a flaw that causes diabetes would now render you inhuman? And, if not, why would you assume that in any other case?
"your problem with abortion isn't the harming of innocent life"
That is precisely my problem with abortion. I was simply pointing out that sex is so compelling to some, that the desire for it trumps common sense and a value of human life. And that is simply pathetic.
"If there were such fervor for the well-being of the child after birth as well as before it"
As your last paragraph shows you at least consider, the vast majority of pro- lifers do spend time helping after birth. Go to your local soup kitchen and tell me who you find working there. Or who donates that food. Or who opens their homes to mothers who need help. Etc. Etc.
"until it drives zealots like those behind the "Wanted: Dead or, umm, Dead" Nuremburg posters out of the movement."
It's not a club. These people don't walk around with signs saying "I run an offensive web site" tshirts. These people are already unwelcome in general pro-life circles, and their actions are roundly condemned. I would try to stop a shooting if I were aware of it, but aside from a specific instance like that, I fail to see how any movement can fully purge its fringe elements.
And why does that change the issue anyway? Does the existance of the Black Panthers render racial equality an invalid cause? Or does the fact that there are eco- terrorists make it acceptable to ignore all environmentalists?
"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"
You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:
"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD
"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD
"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD
...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.
The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.
"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins." "[it] can have no definite scientific answer"
Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life. Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.
"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"
I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).
"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"
Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."
"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"
Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many/. readers.
"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"
Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.
Um, lex is latin: lex legis f. [a set form of words , contract, covenant, agreement]; 'leges pacis', [conditions of peace]; esp. [a law, proposed by a magistrate as a bill, or passed and statutory]; 'legem iubere', [to accept or pass a bill]; in gen., [a precept, rule].
In the case of 'lexical,' it is using the final definition. A lexical analyzer uses rules to generate a program.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Terminator 2 violates canon from T1. It was established in T1 that weapons couldn't pass through the time machine unless they were encased in living flesh, like Arnold.
But in T2, we have the non-flesh-covered T1000 coming through. And we know from the bomb question that Arnold answers that the T1000 can't uplicate complex compounds, so we can rule out the T1000 duplicating flesh. But, then, how could he come back?
Which led to my conclusion that Skynet would send itself back. Now, that would make an interesting movie:)
What about the fact that in Terminator 1, only living things could go through, or artificial stuff encased in metal. Yet, we have a completely non- organic critter coming through in the person of the t1000. And it specifically mentions that he can't form a complex chemical compound(as explained by Arnie when asked why the T1000 can't become a bomb). Which inspired my version of T3.
I live in a causal universe. Everything around me is caused by something else. I cause this message. My parents caused me. All the way back to....what? I could not cause this message if my parents had not caused me, and so on, all the way back.
For example, assume I have a chain suspended in air. Starting from the bottom, each link is held by an earlier link. So, I progress up. But, unless there is something holding the first link up, like a tree limb, the whole of the chain couldn't hold up. The bottom link could not be suspended if the first one wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah...troll...but I can't resist.
If man is but a clever piece of meat, give me a compelling reason I should bother treating him as anything else.
Are you a Catholic? It appears in our Bibles...
I watched my cousins get practically socially destroyed by homeschooling
This sounds like a friend of mine. He was pulled out of school at one point, and homeschooled. However, I think the transition wasn't handled well. It wasn't the homeschooling, it was the feelings engendered by the massive change that weren't dealt with.
BTW, he is fine now.
Dang it! I grew up playing these things, and I didn't turn out violent! Comments like this just make me want to blow something up!
or patch changes with your pinky...
No sensor for the pinky.
Clearly, there will be no consensus here because we are working from different definitions of the word "Chrstian."
Certainly. My point is precisely that we have no consensus. Your doctrines are logically incompatible with Christian doctrines. And I am not trying to dispute the truth of either set of beliefs, only pointing out that they are disjoint.
The link to the byu site works fine for me. As for the author:
'This material is taken from various teachings of Joseph Smith and much of the content is expanded in the book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder," by the late Elder Legrand Richards.'
Do you regard Richards and Smith as unreliable?
I do have to address the worst fallacy: Yes, God did create us.
Well, not according to the Book of Abraham, which, unless I am mistaken, is a part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price.
In Abraham 3, God is explaining creation to Abraham. In 3:16, he is showing Abraham how spirits, though different in intelligence, are of the same nature. He notes that:
'..yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.'
So, spirits are eternal. They have no beginning. So, they cannot have been created by God. And Joseph Smith explicitly taught this.
As Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:
'eternity means that which is without beginning or end . . . I believe that the soul is eternal and had no beginning; it can have no end'
(from an account of Smith's discourse on April 7, 1844, by Thomas Bullock)
and
'that God never had power to create the Spirit of Man at all--God himself could not create himself-- intelligence is self existent it is a spirit from age to end & there is no creation about it.'
(Bullock, ibid)
Is Joseph Smith a "whacko"(your term)? Yet, his beliefs do coincide with Abraham 3.
Abraham 3 also explicits teaches that the premortal spirits of Lucifer and Christ are of the same nature(Abraham 3:22-28).
In your conclusion, you seem to assert the fact that you celebrate holidays, etc. I would assume that this is because you think I am confusing you with JWs. I am not. I know several Mormons. They are quite nice, and we did indeed work together. I am not, and have not, doubted or disparaged the ethics or morals of Mormons. This has no bearing, however, on whether Christian and Mormon doctrines are contradictory. They are.
The Webster definition would certainly include Islam(after all, they believe that Christ was a prophet), so I would say that a more strict definition is needed than that. I would be inclined to present the Apostle's Creed as a good foundation, having never met a Christian who would deny it. Can you affirm the Apostle's Creed, as understood by orthodox Christians(Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox)?
The very idea of the total apostasy is a denial of the veracity of Christian beliefs. The LDS makes no bones about the fact that foundational Christian doctrines(such as the Trinity, the nature of the Father, creation "ex nihilo", etc) are gross heresies.
Your idea that a belief in the divinity of Christ unites us ignores the fact that we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of "divinity."
Want some examples? I would start by pointing you to the LDS website:
"We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know. . . . ", M. Russell Ballard
Notice that that is from the LDS website, not exactly a hostile source.
Let's look at some basic doctrines, espoused by a document called "A Brief Introduction to the Origin, Organization and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
' Latter-day Saints do not believe in the philosophical constructs or thinking of scholars, ancient or modern, in regard to God.'
In a nutshell, the LDS does not believe in Christian concepts of God.
'The Godhead consists of Three Persons, not of the same "substance" but of the same purpose, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.'
Whether right or wrong, this is in exact contradiction to the Christian belief of the Trinity.
'He is a corporeal being possessing a body of flesh and bone, human in form and once lived as a mortal man on a world of the same pattern as the earth upon which we now live.'
A distinct difference from orthodox Christian doctrine, which holds that the Father is a spirit only, and certainly never experienced life in the same pattern as earth.
Of course, you also run into the problem of the claim that we are not created by God:
'...for God did not create us, but by his grace, we are offered the possibility of greater happiness.'
And, the belief that Christ and Lucifer are spirit brothers can be found in the section "Mortal Life" and the section "The Son" in the second reference:
"He(Christ) is the example in all things for the other spirit children of God the Father."(emphasis mine)
"Among the many spirit children of God who had great influence in premortal life was one called Lucifer."
That logically leads to the belief that Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. This is different from the Christian belief that Christ is not of the same nature as Satan. Rather, Satan is a created being(another divergence), subservient in nature and existence to Christ.
I applaud you for your willingness to work alongside others, but that doesn't negate the fact that your beliefs directly and forcefully contradict those of Christians. Even without worrying about which one is correct, it is clear that they are divergent.
The beliefs of Mormons are sufficiently different from orthodox Christianity to be considered a different religion. For example, the belief that the Father was an human(or human- like) being is radically non-Christian. Not to mention the belief that Jesus and Lucifer are "spirit brothers." There are many, many problems with declaring LDS as Christian.
In fact, if you consider Christian beliefs to be vague enough that the LDS would fit, you would probably also have to consider Islam to be a form of Christianity, due to their beliefs about Christ.
This is not meant as an insult, just an observation. The two belief systems(Christianity and Mormonism) simply do not match.
Try gnutella.
"None of the Christian texts you quote are Church canon."
Great. That is relevant how? Feel free to show me Church canon that OK's abortion. You won't find it. In fact, the only actual evidence you will find is a universal condemnation of the act. But, feel free to link to Church canon and prove me wrong.
"You see, such definitions are all arbitrary."
Well, if you really believe this, prove it. Prevent yourself from, say, respirating on a cellular level. Or maintaining homeostasis. After a few minutes, your corpse would prove my point more eloquently than I ever could.
"Technically each living cell is life, yet we don't generally think of it that way."
Really? I have never met anyone who would accept a transplant of, say, dead tissue.
"*It's all arbitrary*, a matter of opinion and speculation and semantics, not of fact."
I'll grant that your reasoning is arbitrary, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is, at one point in time, the generation of a new member of the human race, with a complete and unique set of genes. The moment is conception.
Of course, if it really is all arbitrary, then what is to stop someone in power from classifying you as non- human, you overgrown skin sack of cellular goo?
"I have respect for human life."
Your words deny it. If I respect the spotted owl, I don't engage in or promote activities that have a chance of killing it. If I respect an artist, I don't act in ways that might destroy his works.
"Populations are approaching zero population growth in most developed nations, and are on decline in a few."
Not according to the UN, which claims that 57 countries have a fertility rate below that of the replacement level here.
That would be a negative population growth, not zero. And it scares the hell out of people who realize the full implications. Feel free to read the links.
"where they can drive down the payscales"
Oh, I am sorry. I keep forgetting that money and land ownership are more important that human lives. I'll try to keep that in mind.
"I'm sorry that you're one of those pathetic souls who cannot see sexuality for what it is--one of God's greatest gifts to man."
Actually, I see sexuality in such a positive light that I can't bring myself to treat it as a recreational activity. Especially to the point of killing any children who inconveniently pop up afterwards. I have two sons, with another son or daughter on the way. I didn't get them by kissing. In fact, I dare say I have a much greater appreciation for it than you. In my eyes, it is part of being the image of God. It is a unity so real that 9 months later you might be giving it a name. It is an opportunity to join in creating a new immortal soul. Read some of Pope John Paul II's theology of the body, to hear from someone else who has a really high opinion of sex.
"it should definitely be enjoyed when the opportunity and the mood presents itself"
Despite the fact that casual sex can kill or permanently infect you with something nasty. Despite the fact that you may be put into the position of cooperating in the murder of your own child. I'll say it again. Pathetic.
"You are selfish in wanting to push yopur own personal moral and religious views on a majority who clearly disagree with you."
If it is selfish to want to stop the gruesome murder of children, then, yes, I am selfish. Selfish as all get out. I selfishly reject your supposed right to tear a baby apart for convenience. And, frankly, it matters little what the ratio of pro- life vs. pro- abortion is. It was still wrong to kill a black man in the pre- Civil War South. It was still wrong to kill a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is still wrong to kill a baby in Nazi America.
"prove to me it's human."
Well, I would first argue that we should err on the side of prudence, and not kill something that even MAY be a human. But I digress.
"define humanity"
A member of the human race.
"Then tell me at what point, exactly, that bunch of cells becomes a human life"
Fertilization.
"prove why that is"
An observable biological fact. An oyster begets oysters. A wolf begets wolves. A human begets...(brace yourself)...a human.
"Hard science is often used to bak-up such positions, but hard cvience just as easily backs up the other positions, too--since it's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact."
Well, go ahead and try. Demonstrate that the basic definition of life is arbitrary by removing some aspect of it from yourself.
Creedo
First off, violent sexual attack very rarely results in pregnancy. Even if one were to allow it in those circumstances, you still have thousands of abortions a day to justify. So, this sidebar is a red herring.
'The whole point of pro-choice is not "baby murder should be legal" but rather "a woman should control her body."'
Certainly. Control your body. Your baby, however, is not part of your body.
"certainly no one should be forced into it against their will."
Agreed. But who did the forcing? The aggressor who committed the crime. They should be held permanently accountable, and forced to provide financially for that child. Killing the child solves nothing.
"Men who have many sexual partners are seen as cool."
Funny, I only see examples of this chauvinism in people who embrace abortion anyway. I wonder if there's a connection?
I fail to see how prostitution and pot smoking play into this.
"why isn't more effort put into feeding people?"
Hmm, I look at the people who are actually in the gutters doing something about hunger, like Mother Theresa did, and I find people who understand the value of human life, and don't condone abortion. Funny how they go together.
Creedo
"Exactly why do you say this?"
Because I watched my son play. Literally. It was very clear, and very amusing. And it would have been very legal to kill him at that moment. And that is very wrong.
"Now, if gene therapy changes those genes, what am I?"
You're a person with repaired genes.
"it is the person bit that we need to protect, not the human bit."
Assuming, of course, that you can seperate them even in the cases(exlcuding AI and aliens) that you mentioned. Which I don't agree with.
Creedo
Nice logic: if they had any respect for life, they would ok with murder. Right.
You people must seriously not know any actual pro- lifers to hold these stupid stereotypes.
Creedo
Actually, most states have been enacting laws that make it illegal to prevent you from bringing your baby to class. So, I would look into your specific state laws to see what rights you have in this area.
Secondly, I would look into a) grants and b) local groups to help with funding. Things like Pell grants may fully cover your tuition. There may be other assistance programs which could help. You might also look into local groups, such as churches(if you so inclined) or local civic organizations. They often offer scholarships to people in need. And, if your school has a teaching program for preschool teachers or something of the like, you can often get a much reduced rate for child care. And your college may have a dedicated child care facility already.
Finally, judging from your second sentence, your husband needs an attitude adjustment in the area of "priorities."
Good luck with college. It's hard work, but it is worth it.
Creedo
"Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?"
What? How can you have an exception to a non- existant rule? Do you mean to ask if I would allow those cases? No, I would not.
"Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life?"
A red herring. How many of the estimated 4000 abortions a day do you think meet this criteria? Virtually none, in this age of modern medicine.
"It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job."
Thank you.
"Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?"
And so, the answer is to kill the children? I fail to grasp this concept. You don't think that maybe addressing the problem(changing the lazy, ignorant and selfish mindsets, which will improve life beyond this issue as well) is preferable to slapping a band-aid of legalized murder on the symptom?
"What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception?"
Aside from the issue of a state's compelling interest in seeing its citizens not torn to pieces, you still have the fact that the right to life is the central tenet of a democratic society. That is why the Declaration of Independence affirms right off the bat that
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The right to life is presupposed in every other right. Corpses don't have rights. Some of us have this thing against letting aggressors make those weaker than them into corpses. And we also recognize that once the principle of the inherent worth of a human is discarded, all human life becomes meat to be disposed of as the ruling power sees fit.
"why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools?"
Maybe because the same people who embrace the culture of death run the schools. It's easier to schedule an abortion than teach responsibility.
"Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?"
They should be.
"If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages?"
Many people do.
Creedo
Perhaps you have trouble reading English, and so were unable to make the connection between my quotes, and the previous message wherein it was claimed that Christians at some point accepted abortion. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to this particular issue. It doesn't take theology to be able to quote a historical document.
And, you are wrong on at least two points. Yes, God exists. And, yes, Santa Claus exists(or did). Not the stupid secular version, of course, but a real man nonetheless.
Creedo
So, the absense of a perceptable personality dictates the humanity of an individual? Even if one were to buy this, watching a sonagram would show you plenty of evidence of personality, long before it is illegal to kill the baby.
"Such a child might not be technically human"
Let's do some gene therapy on you. Do you think, say, removing a flaw that causes diabetes would now render you inhuman? And, if not, why would you assume that in any other case?
Creed
"your problem with abortion isn't the harming of innocent life"
That is precisely my problem with abortion. I was simply pointing out that sex is so compelling to some, that the desire for it trumps common sense and a value of human life. And that is simply pathetic.
"If there were such fervor for the well-being of the child after birth as well as before it"
As your last paragraph shows you at least consider, the vast majority of pro- lifers do spend time helping after birth. Go to your local soup kitchen and tell me who you find working there. Or who donates that food. Or who opens their homes to mothers who need help. Etc. Etc.
"until it drives zealots like those behind the "Wanted: Dead or, umm, Dead" Nuremburg posters out of the movement."
It's not a club. These people don't walk around with signs saying "I run an offensive web site" tshirts. These people are already unwelcome in general pro-life circles, and their actions are roundly condemned. I would try to stop a shooting if I were aware of it, but aside from a specific instance like that, I fail to see how any movement can fully purge its fringe elements.
And why does that change the issue anyway? Does the existance of the Black Panthers render racial equality an invalid cause? Or does the fact that there are eco- terrorists make it acceptable to ignore all environmentalists?
Creedo
You don't actually know any pro- lifers, do you? Because I don't literally don't know one who doesn't love kids. Creedo
Well, your honest, but wrong.
/. readers.
"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"
You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:
"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD
"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD
"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD
...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.
The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.
"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"
Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.
"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"
I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).
"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"
Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."
"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"
Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many
"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"
Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.
Creedo
Um, lex is latin:
lex legis f. [a set form of words , contract, covenant, agreement]; 'leges pacis', [conditions of peace]; esp. [a law, proposed by a magistrate as a bill, or passed and statutory]; 'legem iubere', [to accept or pass a bill]; in gen., [a precept, rule].
In the case of 'lexical,' it is using the final definition. A lexical analyzer uses rules to generate a program.
Creedo
As I mentioned elsewhere, Terminator 2 violates canon from T1. It was established in T1 that weapons couldn't pass through the time machine unless they were encased in living flesh, like Arnold.
:)
But in T2, we have the non-flesh-covered T1000 coming through. And we know from the bomb question that Arnold answers that the T1000 can't uplicate complex compounds, so we can rule out the T1000 duplicating flesh. But, then, how could he come back?
Which led to my conclusion that Skynet would send itself back. Now, that would make an interesting movie
Creedo
Oops. s/encased in metal/encased in flesh/
What about the fact that in Terminator 1, only living things could go through, or artificial stuff encased in metal. Yet, we have a completely non- organic critter coming through in the person of the t1000. And it specifically mentions that he can't form a complex chemical compound(as explained by Arnie when asked why the T1000 can't become a bomb). Which inspired my version of T3.
I live in a causal universe. Everything around me is caused by something else. I cause this message. My parents caused me. All the way back to....what? I could not cause this message if my parents had not caused me, and so on, all the way back.
For example, assume I have a chain suspended in air. Starting from the bottom, each link is held by an earlier link. So, I progress up. But, unless there is something holding the first link up, like a tree limb, the whole of the chain couldn't hold up. The bottom link could not be suspended if the first one wasn't.
That is the concept here.
Creedo