Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It doesn't matter. "Potential" has no effect on the present state of an embryo, and an embryo has no capacity for sensation. There is no ethical justification for equating it with a child because a child actually has a basic capacity for volition, and no amount of stubborn insistence can possess it with a "soul" because no such thing exists. Without the capacity for volition, rights are meaningless.michel said:Flappycat; I am with with Darkdale on this one.
That is your opinion; one with which I do not agree.Flappycat said:It doesn't matter. "Potential" has no effect on the present state of an embryo, and an embryo has no capacity for sensation. There is no ethical justification for equating it with a child because a child actually has a basic capacity for volition, and no amount of stubborn insistence can possess it with a "soul" because no such thing exists. Without the capacity for volition, rights are meaningless.
Do you wish to clarity why you disagree?michel said:That is your opinion; one with which I do not agree.
Flappycat said:So is a cockroach, and a cockroach actually consists of quite a few more cells than a newly-concieved embryo.
For better, or worse, the thread 'What is life' might develop an answer.Flappycat said:Do you wish to clarity why you disagree?
When it develops the capacity for sensation, it is capable of being affected by compassion. When it develops the capacity for will and volition to act upon it, it is capable of having liberty. When it develops the capacity for complex emotions, it is capable of loving and being loved. Our cells alone are not what make us people.Darkdale said:I'm just not sure how you justify saying that after conception it's not human until... until when exactly?
Flappycat said:When it develops the capacity for sensation, it is capable of being affected by compassion. When it develops the capacity for will and volition to act upon it, it is capable of having liberty. When it develops the capacity for complex emotions, it is capable of loving and being loved. Our cells alone are not what make us people.
How do you account for the fact that the Bible says:Flappycat said:When it develops the capacity for sensation, it is capable of being affected by compassion. When it develops the capacity for will and volition to act upon it, it is capable of having liberty. When it develops the capacity for complex emotions, it is capable of loving and being loved. Our cells alone are not what make us people.
Fine! If you want to think that the mere fact that something is made of human cells makes it wrong to destroy it, then JUST SAY SO! Just don't continuously take the conversation in circles until my head pulsates and explodes, splashing gray matter and blood over everyone within my vicinity and, on the brighter side, causing the nearest nun to drop dead where she stands. I think that there is something more to human life than just cells. I think it's something more special and unique than that. I feel that insisting that what makes us human is the obvious fact that we're composed of cells criminally trivializes human existence, personally. If you wish to insist that it's "the accumulation of our cells that makes us what we are," or something equally trivial and meaningless, fine. Trying to change your mind doesn't warrent risking a coronary.Darkdale said:Hmm. Well, I guess we simply disagree. I think it is the accumulation of our cells that makes us what we are, from the moment of conception up until death.
What's this about canary's?? :bounceFlappycat said:Trying to change your mind doesn't warrent risking a coronary
God spoke to the people in terms that they could understand. This verse in Deuteronomy was long before zoologists codified animals by phylum, genera, and species.Jensa said:The Bible also calls the bat a bird, so I'm not sure I'd trust it as far as science is concerned.
Oh..in that case I`ll just ditch this whole atheism gig I`ve got going.So, trust me, it's okay to go ahead and trust it.
Now...you didn't actually start posting with the notion that you were going to change anyone's mind here...did you?:biglaugh: I'd say you have about as good a chance of that as anyone here has of changing yours.Flappycat said:...Trying to change your mind doesn't warrent risking a coronary.
I agree. From an outsiders perspective I can't see even the most conservative government repealing abortion law as it stands.CaptainXeroid said:Now...you didn't actually start posting with the notion that you were going to change anyone's mind here...did you?:biglaugh: I'd say you have about as good a chance of that as anyone here has of changing yours.
Steering this thread back to the vicinity of the topic...yes, the topic...remember that? John Roberts has stated and his brief judicial record demonstrates that he is not an 'activist judge'. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the 'right to privacy' was a right reserved for the people per the 9th Amendement, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I am going out on a limb and predicting that even with Robert's confirmation and a second Bush appointment, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned any time soon.
Good idea --- just put it back where it came from --- in the ditch.linwood said:Oh..in that case I`ll just ditch this whole atheism gig I`ve got going.
My pleasure ... but you wouldn't have messed up for long ... sooner or later you'd notice it's written on your coins.Thanks for that clarification..I almost really screwed up.
I don't know about theocratic rule ... but believe me ... they'd be thankful later.However you do realise that using the Bible as a standard for legislation leaves a HUGE portion of our citizenery that holds no faith in the book under theocratic rule.
See above.In essence forcing them to live a life that directly conflicts with their beliefs.
God already instituted it under the dispensation of Human Government, and it led to a Tower. They that don't know the past are bound to repeat it ... therefore NO.Do you advocate such a rule of law?