What's Andrea's fixation with newborns?

No, what is more puzzling is the recent number of women who have attempted to remove or in this case succeeded in removing the baby from the abdomen of a pregnant women.
I've never heard of this until the past few years. It seemed prior to this, women would kidnap newborn babies from hospitals.
Is this part of our objectification of babies - the idea that we have a right to one regardless of our circumstances?

I guess these are the effects of what JP II's warning on the Culture of Death...Desensitization on the sanctity of life for both born and unborn.

...And pro-aborts would say...they're not related...these people CHOSE to do this by themselves...nothing to do with abortion or BC....yeah right.

Relevant radio was talking about the "commercialization" of people the other day.

They asked the question "if we can kill children in the womb, go into clinics and purchase sperm from sperm vendors (not donors...that's a misnomer as donors donate...as in for free), pay surrogate mothers...and all of this is morally acceptable, then why is it that we can't just buy babies?

Any thoughts? Would buying babies be morally wrong? Why, why not?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_sex_have_a_future/

What about the brave new world envisioned in this article?
The recent emergence of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) – cells which have all the malleability of embryonic stem cells but which are created without destroying embryos – spells the end of embryonic stem cell research as an avenue for miracle cures for dread diseases. Many of the world's top stem cell scientists are abandoning it and turning to the new technique.

However, as iPS cells can theoretically morph into any cell in the body, it is theoretically possible to transform them into “artificial” sperm and eggs. This means that anyone can be the progenitor (the words mother and father hardly seem appropriate) of a child – whether they are six months old or 100 years old. Furthermore, eggs and sperm will no longer be in short supply. Lab technicians will be able to make thousands of them. Instead of being conceived and born in love, human life will become a manufactured artefact.

Note the last sentence - the absence of love in a culture of death where people are commodified from birth till death.

Patricia,

Exactly. I've always been surprised with our mentality that it is illegal to sell your organs...

Why not just auction off babies, stem cells, organs, embryos...

Think of all the poor we could help @@

MK:
"Furthermore, eggs and sperm will no longer be in short supply. Lab technicians will be able to make thousands of them"

and arguably, thousands of babies then too.

Babies that can be bought by anyone, for ANY purpose!

Hi, Bethany. I was wondering if you could take my picture down, like Amanda's. Most of the people I like on here already know what I look like, so there's no real reason to keep it up, especially in light of what happened to Amanda.

If anyone wants to get my email address, or my facebook, feel free to ask through Bethany or MK and I'll be happy to let them give it to you.

Patricia --

I've never heard of this until the past few years. It seemed prior to this, women would kidnap newborn babies from hospitals.

I know there was at least one case of it when I was a kid, back in maybe the late 80's or early 90's. I overheard it on the news and it wasn't like they were making a huge fuss over it or anything, so I don't think it was all that rare even back then. I mean obviously it doesn't happen every day, but I don't think it's just a recent phenomenon. I only remember it because it terrified me and I spent approximately the next 5 months of my life worrying that if I ever got pregnant, some crazy person would come and kill me for my baby.

Fortunately, as I was maybe 6 or 7 at the time, it wasn't an immediate concern.

Oh Lyssie and Amanda,

I'm so sad that you are removing your pics. I understand, but I'm still so sad...

MK --

I guess that we, as a culture, still draw a line between spending money to create a person, or spending money to buy a person. I know it seems like a really small distinction, and maybe some people think it's only a token gesture towards acknowledging that people are not commodities. But in our culture at least, buying something implies ownership, and I think that people will probably always shy away from the implication of owning another person. You can buy a man's sperm, or you can buy the temporary use of a woman's body, but even though those things result in the same conclusion as buying a baby -- having a baby -- they're not really the same thing in most people's minds.

Of course, we do come pretty close to that line sometimes, even without getting into scientific technologies. A friend of mine gave her daughter up for adoption a year and a half ago, and the family that she chose to be the adoptive parents were very nice to her, basically as much as the law would allow.

Alexandra,

But isn't the whole abortion rights argument based on the fact that the mother "owns" the person that is growing inside of her?

It's in her body, so she has the right to do whatever she wants with it? Isn't that ownership?

"Of course, we do come pretty close to that line sometimes, even without getting into scientific technologies. "
------------------------------------------

I believe it's not just a line....it's a line that's in the middle of a "slippery slope"...and we have already crossed that line and are heading downwards as a culture and as a nation.

MK: that's right the women's movement considers that the woman "owns" the baby as it is inside her. Even the father of the baby has no say in anything that happens.
As I pointed out on another thread, frozen embryo's apparently have no rights to be born what-so-ever. And, it appears that no matter how desperate the mother is to have a child, even if that embryo represents her ONLY chance of having a child, the man has the final say as to whether the embryo lives or not. Now I wonder what would happen if an independent party sued to have the baby born?

But isn't the whole abortion rights argument based on the fact that the mother "owns" the person that is growing inside of her?

Not really. She owns her own body, including the parts that the person inside her needs in order to grow.

Patricia,

"No, what is more puzzling is the recent number of women who have attempted to remove or in this case succeeded in removing the baby from the abdomen of a pregnant women."

Perhaps it's an instance of copycatting. Occasionally once a crime starts being reported on instances of that crime occurring go up.

It could also simply be a case of an increase in reporting.

"I've never heard of this until the past few years. It seemed prior to this, women would kidnap newborn babies from hospitals.
Is this part of our objectification of babies - the idea that we have a right to one regardless of our circumstances?"

I think it's more due to the increased security in hospitals. In some cases, it may be easier to attempt to steal a baby before it is born (though it's technically not a baby until that point) than to wait until after.

Patricia,

"As I pointed out on another thread, frozen embryo's apparently have no rights to be born what-so-ever."

Can any embryo truly ever be said to have a "right" to be born? If one argues that they do, that "right" is violated by nature far more often than by humanity.

"And, it appears that no matter how desperate the mother is to have a child, even if that embryo represents her ONLY chance of having a child, the man has the final say as to whether the embryo lives or not."

To me, I look at this as an instance in which the wishes of the one who do not wish to take part in a certain course of action should out-way the wishes of the one who wishes to proceed with said course of action. It's exactly the same as when a couple disagrees about having sex--one wishes to, and the other does not. Assuming that all parties have an aversion to rape, said couple will not and should not have sex. I see no reason why this case should be any different. One's right not to do something should out-way the wishes of another who would compel them to do so.

"Now I wonder what would happen if an independent party sued to have the baby born?"

Likely, the independent party would have no grounds for such a suit and the case would go nowhere.

Patricia, in the US at least, it would take noting short of magic powers to take a baby from a hospital. All maternity wards now have alarmed security systems - usually a tag on the umbilical cord clip, that if a baby is moved past a certain point in the hospital, an alarm is sounded and the elevators open on whatever floor they're on and will not close. Also in most hospitals, only the mom or dad who have hospital bracelets on with a numeric code that matches the baby's bracelet as well and the nurse makes the parent read off the code before they can take the child to their room. Some hospitals I've been to even have a permanent security guard post outside the maternity ward. At the hospital I work at, no one can enter the maternity ward with a regular hospital ID, they need a special tag. At the hospital I interned at, a staff member actually needed to walk the parent down to the entrance, check them out with security, and then walk them right to their car. This served a double purpose, because we could make sure they were using their car seats correctly as well.

"I think it's more due to the increased security in hospitals. In some cases, it may be easier to attempt to steal a baby before it is born(though it's technically not a baby until that point)than to wait until after."

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, A. It's easier to cut a baby out of it's mothers body although what you are cutting out is not a baby?! So....what are you stealing? Something not worth stealing but worth eviscerating someone for? Stealing is ok?

If you could clear that up, I would appreciate it.

Carla,

"Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, A. It's easier to cut a baby out of it's mothers body although what you are cutting out is not a baby?!"

Yes, sorry for the confusion. Despite my efforts, my reasoning can be quite convoluted at times. While still inside the mother, the entity in question is a fetus, not a baby. So what one is stealing is the fetus.

"So....what are you stealing? Something not worth stealing but worth eviscerating someone for?"

Wouldn't whether or not something is worth stealing be contingent upon the opinions of the thief?

"Stealing is ok?"

Where did I ever make that assertion? I was clarifying a point, not providing a guide for where-and-when it is acceptable to steal.

Most women who are pregnant and are looking forward to the birth, say they are expecting a BABY, not a fetus. They say "the baby kicked" or "the baby is hiccuping". You don't ask a pregnant woman "how is the 'fetus' doing today?" You don't give women Fetus Showers. You give women BABY showers.

LizFromNebraska,

"Most women who are pregnant and are looking forward to the birth, say they are expecting a BABY, not a fetus. They say "the baby kicked" or "the baby is hiccuping". You don't ask a pregnant woman "how is the 'fetus' doing today?" You don't give women Fetus Showers. You give women BABY showers."

This proves nothing. People use both the vernacular and incorrect terminology all the time in their regular, daily speech. This does not mean that those terms which they choose to use are actually correct.

And they are expecting a baby. That does not imply that the baby currently exists.

When one bakes cookies or a cake, one is "expecting" the baked treat--not batter/dough. That does not, however, mean that the batter/dough currently is either cookies or a cake.

A. @ 11:57 AM

"fetus" describes a stage of growth of a particular offspring - in this case a human being. When one is not pushing an agenda, that's known as a baby.

Actually scientifically there's no doubt what the early human being is - at all. So you're selectively using a stage of growth term - "fetus" to describe what is well known as a baby, which is also completely acceptable when having a philosophic discussion.

Shall we bring out embyrology textbooks?

If one wants it; it's a baby and if one doesn't; it's a fetus. The Pro-Abortion movement has to use the label, "fetus", otherwise they would be acknowledging the person-hood or humanity of the fetus.

Not really. She owns her own body, including the parts that the person inside her needs in order to grow.
Posted by: Alexandra at July 22, 2008 10:14 AM

Can't she "loan" them for nine months and give that "person" a chance at life with someone else?
It's not as if that "person" is going to be a life-long parasite that a woman has to deal with for the rest of her life.

Chris,

"baby" describes a stage of growth of a particular offspring - in this case a human being. When one is not pushing an agenda, that's known as a fetus [until it is born].

I never denied that said fetus was not human--never said that it was not a human offspring. I simply prefer to use medically correct terminology (ie. fetus, embryo, zygote) as opposed to the more emotional-laden and incorrect term of "baby."

It isn't "well-known" to be a baby. That's your subjective judgment and cannot legitimately be passed off as fact. To do so is academic dishonesty.

Eileen,

"If one wants it; it's a baby and if one doesn't; it's a fetus."

Not technically true. While in the womb, the developing entity is a fetus, regardless of what one chooses to call it.

"It's not as if that "person" is going to be a life-long parasite that a woman has to deal with for the rest of her life."

No, but she will be dealing with the effects that that "person" (to use your terminology, which I personally feel is incorrect) will have upon her body for the rest of her life.

Personhood and humanity are also entirely separate issues.

A. @ 12:57 PM

Show me a non-human person.

A. @ 12:55 PM

What about the zygote, blastocyst, the embryo?

Personhood and humanity are also entirely separate issues.

Gnostic eh?

Detachable personhood from your body - right?

Some corporations are legally viewed as "persons." Last time I checked, the corporation itself wasn't human.

Also, your logic there is slightly flawed. Saying "personhood and humanity are separate issues" is in no way comparable to saying "everyone who is a person is human," as you have attempted to do so.

A - is truth real?

Another question - are you self-aware?

Just because you don't understand where I'm coming from doesn't mean my logic is flawed.

"What about the zygote, blastocyst, the embryo?"

What about them? I have no idea what you're asking.

"Gnostic eh?"

I am most assuredly not a member of any Christian sect.

"Detachable personhood from your body - right?"

Show me where I ever asserted this.

"Just because you don't understand where I'm coming from doesn't mean my logic is flawed."

It does when you're extrapolating falsely limited meanings from what I say.

Personhood is a separate issue from humanity - right?

A- Are your personhood attributes accidental?

“A - is truth real?”

That depends by on what you mean by truth.

“Another question - are you self-aware?”

Yes. In the words of Descartes, “I think, so therefore I am.”

It does when you're extrapolating falsely limited meanings from what I say.

What - rules about how I think?

Why that sounds completely subjective.

That depends by on what you mean by truth.

Can truth be unreal?

Yes. In the words of Descartes, “I think, so therefore I am.”

But how do you know?

Chris,

A simple fallacy of logic.

Take the statement: "Personhood and humanity are also entirely separate issues."

You responded with "Show me a non-human person," implying that humanity was both a necessary and sufficient condition for personhood. The error lies in your assumption that the statement logically cannot be applicable in any other way. Why can that statement not be read the other way--that personhood is a condition of humanity?

"I simply prefer to use medically correct terminology (ie. fetus, embryo, zygote) as opposed to the more emotional-laden and incorrect term of "baby."
------------------------------------

Ah yes...the typical pro-abort reasoning once again. De-humanizing terms for the unborn.
Once de-humanized..it would be easier to kill.
(*do you pro-aborts take a class somewhere on this?)

Tell me A., why would the entire world call a "baby" a baby if it was incorrect?

IF you prefer to call the unborn a fetus, what KIND of fetus, A.?

If you want to be accurate and specific in the terms, there are monkey fetus, goat fetus..animal fetus..etc...

..an unborn baby is a HUMAN fetus.

Eileen --

Can't she "loan" them for nine months and give that "person" a chance at life with someone else?

Of course she can. Man women do. But should she be forced to?

"Can truth be unreal?"

Once again, that depends upon your definition of truth. What is truth and then how do we know that it is actually truth once we have identified it?

"But how do you know?"

You did not seriously just dismiss out-of-hand one of the leading tenants of philosophy.

That is Descartes' proof of existence. "I think, so therefore I am." A simple statement, yet quite powerful. I know that I exist (I count self-awareness as a part of that existence) because I cam think. Being aware that I can think is the definition of being self-aware.

I think this would also be a lovely time to bring up my arguments about beliefs and knowing (or lack thereof). One can hold a belief without having definitive proof of the rightness of it.

A - you're arguing about the personhood of the unborn, who are scientifically, and rather undeniably human beings.

So you're entering a metaphysics territory. I'm asking you questions to establish how you think about personhood and whether it is accidental and an inherent trait of humanity.

Are you now saying this is irrelevant? I'm asking you questions about your own personhood and truth. And if you're going to start making statements that personhood is not inherent to humanity, then I'll have to leave, because you'd be arguing quite literally against yourself!

"Tell me A., why would the entire world call a "baby" a baby if it was incorrect?"

It doesn't.

"..an unborn baby is a HUMAN fetus."

And where did I ever dispute this?

Hang on...I didn't read that carefully enough.

A baby and a human fetus are two separate things. First come the fetus, then comes the baby.

Hey A - If Descartes was knocked unconscious would he have ceased to "be"?

Is awareness a detachable trait of humanity?

"A - you're arguing about the personhood of the unborn, who are scientifically, and rather undeniably human beings."

But what makes a human being a person?

"I'm asking you questions to establish how you think about personhood and whether it is accidental and an inherent trait of humanity."

And which would you prefer?

"Are you now saying this is irrelevant?"

I thought I'd throw that line of thinking out there. Normally, I don't make it pertaining to issues such as this (more when people try to convert me). However, that said, there are very few things in this world which one can definitively know.

"And if you're going to start making statements that personhood is not inherent to humanity, then I'll have to leave, because you'd be arguing quite literally against yourself!"

And why would that be?

And I hate to tell you this, but I believe that personhood is, in fact, accidental.

A- I'm getting the impression that you're not fully baked!

(I'm teasing you! Of course.)

We'll have to take this up at another time - I have to get back to some productive work.

Cheers!

"Hey A - If Descartes was knocked unconscious would he have ceased to "be"?"

No, for he still retained the capacity.

"Is awareness a detachable trait of humanity?"

Please state what you mean by detachable.

A - see we agree. Personhood is an accidental trait. (But then so are the rest of our inherent traits!)

"A baby and a human fetus are two separate things. First come the fetus, then comes the baby.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 1:30 PM"
-----------------------------------

Two 'separate' things? You mean to say when a woman becomes pregnant it has a fetus then when she gives birth, it becomes a baby?

At what point does the fetus 'become' the baby?
When the fetus comes out, then voila, it's a baby?

Answer me this..my son's head got stuck for about 10-20 secs coming out (he got conehead because of this)...When was he considered a baby?

So things like FETAL heart monitors and FETAL growth charts ...so on and so forth... are all inventions of "pro aborts"?

A.:1:09: Some corporations are legally viewed as "persons." Last time I checked, the corporation itself wasn't human.

You are correct that a corporation can be considered a "legal person", but a corporation is not a "natural person".

Corporate law (from: Wikipedia)

"The existence of a corporation requires a special legal framework and body of law that specifically grants the corporation legal personality, and typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person). As such, corporate statutes typically give corporations the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes in a capacity that is separate from that of its shareholders (who are sometimes referred to as "members")."

According to Lord Chancellor Haldane,
"...a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation."[21]

mk:8:35: Looks like someone took away your lollipop.:(
Is there any way we can cheer you up?

The woman who self-aborted must have been mentally ill. What a sad story. Where was her family, or her boyfriend when she needed them? Why didn't she contact a social worker if she needed help?
She could have gone to a fire station, a hospital, a police station,
or a crisis pregnancy center, instead of aborting her baby, right?

"So things like FETAL heart monitors and FETAL growth charts ...so on and so forth... are all inventions of "pro aborts"?

Posted by: Amanda at July 22, 2008 2:10 PM
-------------------------------------

Why, what's wrong with those terms, Amanda?

I stated "Human Fetus" to be a much more precise definition.

I shudder to think at what a pro-abort might invent...(Sanger and Hitler comes to mind)

...let's include Obama in that list , just for the heck of it...

RSD,

"Two 'separate' things? You mean to say when a woman becomes pregnant it has a fetus then when she gives birth, it becomes a baby?"

Yes. A fetus becomes a baby when it is no longer housed within a woman's body and dependent upon her for survival.

"Answer me this..my son's head got stuck for about 10-20 secs coming out (he got conehead because of this)...When was he considered a baby?"

That depends...I don't know enough about the specific case to comment.

Janet,

No distinction was drawn between "natural" and "corporate" person in the above discussion.

In any case, I do not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate source. If it cannot be cited in an academic paper, it is not credible enough for me.

A., So, a woman's body is a fetal house?? Oh please. A newborn baby is still dependent for food and clothing, etc... please...

"The woman who self-aborted must have been mentally ill."

Um...she didn't self-abort. She committed infanticide.

Janet,

"A., So, a woman's body is a fetal house??"

Nope, never said it. A fetus is housed inside a woman's body. That fact does not reduce a woman's body to simply being a "fetal house." Since you object, please tell me where a fetus resides for the nine months until it is born.

"A newborn baby is still dependent for food and clothing, etc... please..."

There is a difference between social and physical dependency.

"Answer me this..my son's head got stuck for about 10-20 secs coming out (he got conehead because of this)...When was he considered a baby?"

That depends...I don't know enough about the specific case to comment.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 2:59 PM
------------------------------------

Typical answer. What else do you need to know?
The head was sticking out a couple of inches on his way out...the Ob did an episiotomy(sp?) and out comes my son.

Was he a baby when he got stuck or only when he was freed?

Or is it when the umbilical cord was clamped or cut? But remember he was already out when I cut the cord.

RSD,

When he got stuck, was there concern that he might die if not freed soon?

Padme to young Anakin Skywalker: You're a Slave?

Young Anakin Skywalker: I'm a person and my name is Anakin.

;)

A.3:04: No distinction was drawn between "natural" and "corporate" person in the above discussion.

My point in defining a corporation is that a corporation as a "person" is irrelevant to this discussion. A corporation is an abstraction with no mind or body of its own.

A: In any case, I do not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate source. If it cannot be cited in an academic paper, it is not credible enough for me.

Is the IRS academic enough? http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html

A: 3:18: "Um...she didn't self-abort. She committed infanticide."

So she murdered her fetus (or baby)?

A baby doesn't "reside". A baby grows in the woman's uterus for nine months.

"A newborn baby is still dependent for food and clothing, etc... please..."

A: There is a difference between social and physical dependency.

Obviously.

@Liz: That movie suuuuuuucked.

(Go Original Trilogy!)

A. does it matter? The question was when does the human fetus become a baby?

A. You sound a lot like SoMG. Are you?

Janet,

I can assure you that A is not SoMG.

I don't think so, Janet...SoMG is more 'heartless'...he accepts the pro-life definition of terms but sticks to his abortion ideals nevertheless.

A. won't even come to "terms" (no pun inteneded)

RSD,

Didn't mean to sound callous there. It matters because you asked me my opinion on a specific case. In order to give a judgment, I need to know all of the relevant information. That is relevant--it speaks to the ability to survive on one's own as opposed to that being contingent upon the environment.

I actually don't know much about the birthing process, but I do believe that the air supply is cut off for a certain amount of time and that it that time is too long death can occur.

Bobby, that was fast!

Bobby,

Thanks for the vote of confidence :)

Your clarity in expressing your ideas is not easily forgotten, A... :)

Though if people are seriously comparing me to SOMG (diff. debating styles and views), perhaps it means that I should retire for the day.

A...he was on his way out...he already did his 9 months...

I wasn't asking about the birthing process nor the viability of the unborn on his way out of the mother..

My simple question was: When did the fetus become my baby if he got stuck coming out?

Bobby, Now you have me wondering.....

I fear, however, that perhaps I am being a tad too aggressive today and not up to my usual standard.

A....still waiting for your answer.

Well, it's just that SoMG has recently been banned for two weeks, but has been trying to post under false names, so we're all a little suspicious that someone new might be him in disguise. That would be my conjecture.

And I still can't give you one because you haven't given me all of the relevant information. I'm sorry if you think that I'm being stubborn, but I really don't like giving an opinion until I feel I have all of the information that I need to in order to give an informed answer.

A...you mean to say that fetus changes to a baby depending on what happens at birth???

IF you don't want to commit to an answer...I will answer for you:

The very simple answer is that the Fetus and the Baby are one and the same...even when my son got stuck..he's still a baby..in the womb or out.

Fetus is just a technical/ medical term for development and you pro-abort folks would like to think otherwise but get hung in the process.

RSD,

You asked me to give my opinion on a specific case, not a general answer. In order to speak to the specific, I need all of the details.

I've already given you my general answer.

Bobby,

Good to know.

A. I apologize. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions, it wasn't fair to you.

Sure, A.....whatever you say.

RSD, I'm sorry you had to go through that. It must have been terrible.

Speaking of cakes in the oven (above), don't some people refer to pregnancy as "having a bun in the oven"? They certainly don't call it a "wad of dough", do they?

A.,

...My curious mind wants to know..have you ever been pregnant or would you have kids?

No problem Janet...the baby is turning 1 next month. The one that miscarried has been prayed over with and is now in a better place.

I was just adding something to the personhood argument. Anakin was Watto's "property", but he said he was a Person and that he had a name.

And yes, I agree, go Original Trilogy.

RSD,

Could you clarify for me? You have a one year old who got his head caught during the birth, and the little angel that you lost was just recently, like within the past couple of months. Is that right?

Speaking of cakes in the oven (above), don't some people refer to pregnancy as "having a bun in the oven"? They certainly don't call it a "wad of dough", do they?

Posted by: Janet at July 22, 2008 5:03 PM
................................

Most people would not need to be told that for there to be a bun, there must first be a wad of dough followed by a period of applied heat to cause the ingredients to react sufficiently to create a bun. Of course, if the recipe is not correctly followed and/or the heat not appropriate, there will be no bun.
Obviously to say that there is a bun in the oven, is not to say that what is in the oven is already a bun.
Saying that dinner is the oven is not the same as saying that dinner is ready.

Sally, I'm getting hungry!

No, but she will be dealing with the effects that that "person" (to use your terminology, which I personally feel is incorrect) will have upon her body for the rest of her life.
Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 12:55 PM

She will deal with the effects on her body if she has an abortion also. Effects that would potentially be worse than what childbirth would cause.

I fear, however, that perhaps I am being a tad too aggressive today and not up to my usual standard.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 3:48 PM

HOw do you KNOW for sure this is not somg? He could be posting from another computer?

WHAT is SOMG doing on this board!
MODERATORS!???????

NO Somg - it's just that you are creepy and a lurker.
You are obsessed. How many babies did you kill today?

This proves nothing. People use both the vernacular and incorrect terminology all the time in their regular, daily speech. This does not mean that those terms which they choose to use are actually correct.

Posted by: A at July 22, 2008 12:18 PM

Nevertheless, the vernacular reflects what we believe in. If we believed that this was anything other than a baby this would be the convention. It is only recently as we try to deflect our consciences away from what is happening that this claim has been made.
In fact, I would argue that the fact that proaborts use innocuous medical terms to distract attention from the fact that we are dealing with a baby and that we are dealing with the right to life of an actual human person suggests that they KNOW (in their conscience) the truth of what they are arguing against.
If it were not so they would not need to change the language.

A baby and a human fetus are two separate things. First come the fetus, then comes the baby.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 1:30 PM"

This posting proves my point. A. knows in fact it is a baby from conception onward but to accept abortions early in pregnancy she must use the medical term "fetus", not necessarily because that is what it is (in medical terminology) but because fetus makes it somehow less than a baby in her proabort thinking.

If the fetus is less than a human baby then it CAN be aborted.
YOu can rationalize all you want A, but it ain't gonna make it so.

Bobby,

That is correct...we had our baby(3rd child) last Aug..our elder kids are 11 and 12 ...We thought we were done...didn't expect a third. Then last Feb, we found out we had a 4th one...not really sure what we were gonna do with a second baby so soon BUT we trusted in Divine Providence...and was really looking forward to it...then the miscarriage happened during the Sat before Palm Sunday.

That was a tough Holy Week.

I'm so sorry about your loss RSD.
I have friends who had 7 children and the father had a vasectomy. His wife recently became Catholic and they just had their 8th child. The 7th is 15 and the youngest is 18mons!

RSD -- your post brings to mind---
"I will bless the Lord at all times..."

God bless you!

Hi Patricia!
I'm happy to see that Thor didn't catch you! :D

RSD,

“My curious mind wants to know..have you ever been pregnant or would you have kids?”

Does that honestly make any difference? One can have opinions on a topic without having direct knowledge of it.

Regardless, the answer to both of those questions is no, though the reasoning for the latter answer is not what you would think.

Janet,

It's okay. Thanks though.

Eileen,

"She will deal with the effects on her body if she has an abortion also. Effects that would potentially be worse than what childbirth would cause."

I have yet to see a credible source that supports this.

Patricia,

"HOw do you KNOW for sure this is not somg? He could be posting from another computer?"

"WHAT is SOMG doing on this board!
MODERATORS!???????"

"NO Somg - it's just that you are creepy and a lurker. You are obsessed. How many babies did you kill today?"

Okay, either I missed something or you're really paranoid.

Is Bobby vouching for me not enough?

Janet,

"My point in defining a corporation is that a corporation as a "person" is irrelevant to this discussion. A corporation is an abstraction with no mind or body of its own."

And the assertion was made that to be a person one had to have a human mind and a human body. The existence of corporate "persons" disproves said assertion.

"So she murdered her fetus (or baby)?"

Murdering a baby is infanticide. Killing a fetus is not, since the fetus is not an infant.

"A baby doesn't "reside". A baby grows in the woman's uterus for nine months."

What's the difference? Do you mean to tell me that while the fetus is "growing" in a woman's uterus it is residing elsewhere?

"Obviously."

If you admit that there is a difference between physical and social dependency, why do you treat them the same?

Patricia,

"Nevertheless, the vernacular reflects what we believe in."

This I dispute. In my opinion, the vernacular often reflects what is simply easier or is couched in unnecessarily and factually incorrect emotional terminology.

"If we believed that this was anything other than a baby this would be the convention."

Not necessarily. I would also like to point out that belief does not necessarily make things true.

"It is only recently as we try to deflect our consciences away from what is happening that this claim has been made."

Sources please.

"In fact, I would argue that the fact that proaborts use innocuous medical terms to distract attention from the fact that we are dealing with a baby and that we are dealing with the right to life of an actual human person suggests that they KNOW (in their conscience) the truth of what they are arguing against."

A few points. First, it's hard to take you seriously when you consistently refer to your opponents in terms which you know to be offensive and incorrect. If you want respect, you have to show it.

Secondly, the entity in question is a fetus, not a baby. I suggest you look up the definition of fetus.

Thirdly, you assume far too much. You're grossly mischaracterizing the debate. Basically, you just said "Deep down, you really believe what I believe but refuse to accept it."

Really convincing. @@

There's absolutely no way that you could know more about me and how I think than I do.

RSD,

I, too, am sorry for your loss.

Patricia, Eileen, A...

Thank you for your sympathies...we WILL meet our little one in heaven.

A,

would you by any chance be willing to email me? You can make up a fake email addy. If not that is totally 100% fine.

"Regardless, the answer to both of those questions is no, though the reasoning for the latter answer is not what you would think.

Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 10:10 AM"
------------------------------------

I just wanted to know if you have ever had the chance of cradling your own baby..your own flesh and blood...of smelling that new baby smell and seeing the baby sleeping so delicately and so soundly in your arms...

Hi A - could you send me an email at chris@jillstanek.com. Thanks.

Eileen,

"She will deal with the effects on her body if she has an abortion also. Effects that would potentially be worse than what childbirth would cause."

I have yet to see a credible source that supports this.
Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 10:16 AM

It's out there, A. What gets me is the convoluted reasoning that pro-choice people use to refute it.

Eileen,

"It's out there, A. What gets me is the convoluted reasoning that pro-choice people use to refute it."

What gets me is the convoluted logic of people who don't understand what makes a study valid and applicable or those people who believe that a study's accuracy is determined by the ideological leanings of those who conduct it.

Chris,

I'll think about it. I don't mean to sound callous or cold, but I generally have an aversion to sending emails to people that I meet on the web.

No problem - it was entirely voluntary. I noticed also that Bobby had asked just prior to my asking.

RSD,

"I just wanted to know if you have ever had the chance of cradling your own baby..your own flesh and blood...of smelling that new baby smell and seeing the baby sleeping so delicately and so soundly in your arms..."

I do not deny that having a baby is an incredibly beautiful, moving and profound experience.

It is simply not for everyone and I see no reason why women should be forced to give birth when they are opposed to having children and to having their bodies used in such a manner.

So, rather than give birth to live baby ...kill the baby and give birth to a dead one?

Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant...it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.

And IMO, motherhood is a calling for all women.

RSD,

"So, rather than give birth to live baby ...kill the baby and give birth to a dead one?"

First, generally abortions do not effect babies because the abortion is performed when no baby exists.

"Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant...it just makes you the mother of a dead baby."

False. Since abortion ends a pregnancy, it does indeed make you "un-pregnannt." It also does not result in a dead baby, because one cannot kill what does not exist.

"And IMO, motherhood is a calling for all women."

No, it really isn't. If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

A.10:24: This going back and forth is probably getting a bit tedious for others....
1) You can assume no one is talking about coporate "persons" at Jill's. I think you and Chris were discussing that and I'll leave that to you both.
2) What is your point about social dependency and physical dependency?
3) If this mother committed infanticide by committing an abortion on herself, why isn't an abortionist accused of the same when the baby ends up dead? She did just what an abortionist would do.

If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 5:00 PM

Selfishness? Lack of hope? Despair?

Janet,

"1) You can assume no one is talking about coporate "persons" at Jill's. I think you and Chris were discussing that and I'll leave that to you both."

That would have been my advice.

"2) What is your point about social dependency and physical dependency?"

One cannot kill an infant because an infant is socially dependent (ie. anyone could care for it) while one can end the potential life of a fetus because it is physically dependent upon the body of another (who may not be willing to provide).

"3) If this mother committed infanticide by committing an abortion on herself, why isn't an abortionist accused of the same when the baby ends up dead? She did just what an abortionist would do."

One cannot commit infanticide through abortion; if the article claims this, the terminology that it is using it incorrect.

So, when you're pregnant, there's no baby inside the tummy?

What does the abortionist do then?

Janet,

"Selfishness? Lack of hope? Despair?"

So if anyone deviates from your view of what is acceptable, something is wrong with them?

You have a very stereotypical and damaging view of womanhood.

RSD,

"So, when you're pregnant, there's no baby inside the tummy?"

I've covered this--a fetus.

Why don't women want to be moms?

Well, A...YOU tell me.

RSD,

"Well, A...YOU tell me."

I will not generalize. If one wants something quick and easy, seek generalization. If one wants something true, look elsewhere.

Ok A. If women were NOT called to be moms...why would they have mammary glands and a uterus?

Shouldn't this be optional for thos women?

RSD,

"Ok A. If women were NOT called to be moms...why would they have mammary glands and a uterus? Shouldn't this be optional for thos women?"

Simply because one has the physical capacity to do something does not mean that they are all called to to do.

Slight typo there:

Simply because one has the physical capacity to do something does not mean that one has a "calling" to do so.

Good enough A....gotta go coach VB camp now.

I was listening to Relevant Radio the other day, and Janet Smith was talking.

She brought up some fascinating points.

We know that birth control mimics pregnancy. So as far as the woman's body is concerned, she is carrying a child.

But is it possible, that males in certain species pick up on this? In many animals, the female looks for the Alpha Male to mate with. In wolves ONLY the Alpha male and Alpha female are allowed to mate.

The male that gets chosen is the one most like to protect and provide for any offspring.

An experiment was done with monkeys. The females were put on the pill, and introduced to males. The males not only didn't attempt to mate with the females, but they became aggressive and acted out.

In another experiment female lap dancers were monitored. Those that were on the pill got significantly lower tips than those who were not, and the women that were ovulating got the highest tips. Men are attracted to fertile females.

Finally, in another test, men that were considered "losers", didn't have jobs, weren't clean, weren't aggressive/competitive, were given T-shirts to wear for 24 hours. Another group of men, that were highly competitive/aggressive, successful, etc. were also given t-shirts.

Women on birth control and women that were not on birth control were given the t-shirts to smell.

The woman on birth control, chose the t-shirts of the "losers", while the women not on birth control chose the "winners"...

What does this mean? Maybe nothing.

BUT:

What if, by being on the pill you are sending out signals (most likely pheremones) that you are pregnant, and therefore not looking to "mate", you were actually attracting the types of guys who were not interested in starting families?

I realize that that seems contradictory, since if you're pregnant your already starting a family, but the pheremones whe're talking about here are the ones that attract men, sexually.

So men that don't want to make babies are being attracted to infertile women. Men that want families and would make good providers are attracted to fertile women.

And women on the pill, often NOT ALWAYS, have less sex drive. So, they might not be putting out any signals that would attract potentially "good" mates.

I'm not saying that these were conclusive. I can't even find the studies to cite them. I can only find articles of people talking about them, but not the studies themselves.

So I'm not putting this out there as a SEE, BIRTH CONTROL IS BAAAAAD...but it did make me think. Couple this with all the hormones in our food, and BC in our water supply...

And the fact that so many women on the pro choice side say they never want children...maybe it's the birth control pills themselves that are suppressing maternal instincts. After all, your body thinks it's pregnant, so it's not looking to get pregnant again...not actively seeking someone to "Impregnate" them...

I don't know. I just thought it would make a good discussion...

A. said:5:00: If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

Janet: 5:02: Selfishness? Lack of hope? Despair?

A:5:08: So if anyone deviates from your view of what is acceptable, something is wrong with them?
You have a very stereotypical and damaging view of womanhood.

You're assuming I think something is wrong those motives I listed, I didn't say that.
Also, I misread the question, I thought it asked "why do women abort?"Sorry!

mk: 5:38: You are being very prejudicial in saying that men who didn't have jobs, weren't clean, weren't aggressive/competitive, are losers. Some people may like that sort of guy!!! You have no right!!
(just kidding).

mk, I have actually heard of that before. I find it really interesting.

Alexandra,

I know...I'm not saying I believe it, or that it doesn't have it's flaws. But it really makes you think...what exactly are we messing with here?

Simply because one has the physical capacity to do something does not mean that one has a "calling" to do so.

Posted by: A at July 23, 2008 5:25 PM

yes it does. It means that that was the way God intended the being to function. That is women have a uterus and breasts because they were designed to bear children. Men do not - they were not designed to physically nurture a developing human inside their bodies.

The vast majority of women DO want children. It is part of innate femininity to wish to bear children and to desire to nurture them. Women enjoy this to varying degrees based on their personality, their physical make up, their emotional maturity etc.

If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 5:00 PM

you have not proven this statement - provide some stats.

And the fact that so many women on the pro choice side say they never want children...maybe it's the birth control pills themselves that are suppressing maternal instincts. After all, your body thinks it's pregnant, so it's not looking to get pregnant again...not actively seeking someone to "Impregnate" them...

I don't know. I just thought it would make a good discussion...

Posted by: mk at July 23, 2008 5:38 PM

MK: there is a doctor who believes that BC pills actually have an effect on women making them fearful of getting pregnant. It has already been proven that BC lowers libido in women.
I'll try to find the site where I read about the former.

It has already been proven that BC lowers libido in women.

Patricia, I just mentioned that this week. I heard it in an interview of Dr. Janet Smith by Johnette Benkovic. It was very interesting. I wish I could remember specifics for you! :(

Eileen,

If you read my post (the one that started this conversation) you'll see that it was that interview that I was talking about.

I remember the interview, but can't find the studies. I wish I could, because the whole thing was absolutely riveting.

Yes I've seen lots of articles about this on the internet Eileen.

Whoops! Sorry, mk, I didn't go back far enough when returned. Is it any surprise when we start fiddling with God's design? :)

Janet,

"Lack of hope? Despair?"

I think a lot of people would find something wrong with those.

"Also, I misread the question, I thought it asked "why do women abort?"Sorry!"

Is okay.

Patricia,

"yes it does. It means that that was the way God intended the being to function. That is women have a uterus and breasts because they were designed to bear children. Men do not - they were not designed to physically nurture a developing human inside their bodies."

Simply because someone is designed to be capable of doing something does not mean that that one is destined to do so. Simply because human beings are designed to be able run relatively fast (well, not compared to a cheetah) or to hunt does not mean that we have a calling to do so.

An argument calling upon God as a justification is only valid if you are arguing with someone who shares your beliefs. Since I do not, it you wish to be able to effectively use this type of reasoning in an argument you must:

A.) Prove the existence of a god.
B.) Prove that this god is the Christian God.
C.) Prove that your interpretation of this Christian God is correct.

"The vast majority of women DO want children. It is part of innate femininity to wish to bear children and to desire to nurture them. Women enjoy this to varying degrees based on their personality, their physical make up, their emotional maturity etc."

Sources please.

"you have not proven this statement - provide some stats."

I said many, not most. That gives me far more leeway than if I had made some other claim. I believe that the proof you seek can be found at childfree.com or other similar sites.

In addition, what about all of those women who (sorry, MK) choose to be nuns and to devote their lives to their conception of God instead of having children? Are they violating God's grand design and acting in ways contrary to their natures?
Posted by: Patricia at July 23, 2008 7:13 PM

M.K.

That is indeed a very interesting article. It raises a few questions, however. If men are so overwhelming attracted to fertile women, why do men sometimes marry infertile women?

As to the effects of BC on a women's hormones and who she finds attractive, I don't know enough about how hormones operate to comment. I will however, say that if one is altering the hormonal makeup of one's body it is likely that there will be unintended effects.

In my case, a desire not to have children has nothing to do with BC. I'd prefer not to get into my reasoning, because I really don't want about fifteen people jumping down my back and saying, "see! this is why you should be pro-life!" (And yes, it would happen with what my reasons are.)

"A.) Prove the existence of a god.
B.) Prove that this god is the Christian God.
C.) Prove that your interpretation of this Christian God is correct.
----------------------------------

A) Already proven by the 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas (summary: http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm)

B) Read the Old Testament WITH the New Testament
(pray to the Holy SPirit first for guidance or Better yet..read the CCC: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

C) Believe first that you may understand...rather than the other way around.

A...the burden of proof is not with us believers but to you Non-believers...

Patricia,

"the burden of proof is not with us believers but to you Non-believers..."

But that's the opposite of how proof and assumption works in the rest of the world. Guilt is not assumed: people are presumed to be innocent until it has been proven otherwise.

Non-existence also cannot be proven--it's philosophically impossible. (Well, apart from that whole of "prove this chair does not exist"--"what chair?") Existence, however, can be proven and I ask for that definitive proof.

Additionally, this would be a good time for me to mention that absolute certainty and proof is not necessary to hold a belief. If, however, one is going to tell me that I am wrong and try to change my mind, I ask for proof.

You cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence. That is a circular argument at it's finest: the Bible (which, depending on interpretation, is either divinely inspired or the literal work of God) cannot prove the existence of said God because the divinity of said entity has already been assumed.

Thomas Acquinas's proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God. His proofs are also not infallible. If you wish, I can go through and dispute each one.

However, the point of my statement in the original post was not to either attack your faith or argue about the existence (or lack thereof) of a being known as the Christian God. My point was that if you want to prove your point, you have to begin with assertions that we both agree on. Otherwise, you have made a meaningless statement in the context of this debate.

Oops, that was supposed to be addressed to RSD.

"Existence, however, can be proven and I ask for that definitive proof."
----------------------------------
Already did...just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.

"You cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence"
-------------------
I didn't...read the post again...

"Thomas Acquinas's proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God"
---------------------------
It was for the existence of God.

"My point was that if you want to prove your point, you have to begin with assertions that we both agree on..."

ah, there's the rub....what do we agree on?

RSD,

"Already did...just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist."

I'm sorry, you didn't. You offered Philosophical Proofs that have long since been disputed/disproven by minds far greater than my own and a Book which demonstrates nothing one already believes. You also have a long way to go in proven that, if there is a God, that it is the Christian one.

"ah, there's the rub....what do we agree on?"

Which is why I suggest leaving God out of the equation.

*nothing unless one already believes

There you go....

A,

I think so of this will be really interesting to discuss with you. As always though, I may take a while to respond. I'll address only one thing to get us started and see where it goes.

"Non-existence also cannot be proven--it's philosophically impossible. (Well, apart from that whole of "prove this chair does not exist"--"what chair?") Existence, however, can be proven and I ask for that definitive proof."

Once we have an understanding of the words "God" and "exists", the negative claim that "God does not exist" is in fact a positive truth claim which the atheist has a burden of proof to show. This is in contrast to the agnostic who says that they don't know if God exists or not (the agnostic who says that we can NOT KNOW if God exists also has the burden of proof on him).

So I would argue that the only claim for which one does not have a burden of proof is the claim that they don't know if God exists. As far as your chair example goes, I think you haven't given me enough information in order to make a decision on whether or not it exists. If you say "a pink chair which only I can see," I might be able to say a little bit more. But I think the problem lies in your phrase "this chair." Tell me more about the chair and I think I can make a sesnable existence claim about it.

So that's all I'm going to say for now. Talk to you soon.

Bobby,

"Once we have an understanding of the words "God" and "exists", the negative claim that "God does not exist" is in fact a positive truth claim which the atheist has a burden of proof to show."

I stand corrected--you are correct in that it depends upon the assumptions which one begins upon. If one begins from a position that God exists, then the nonexistence of said entity is, in fact, a positive claim. If one begins from a position of nonexistence, the reverse is true.

I suppose it's also true that the only position which needs to prove nothing is the agnostic. I still think that it's somewhat of a wash as a position though--one does not need definitive proof in order to hold a belief.

"As far as your chair example goes, I think you haven't given me enough information in order to make a decision on whether or not it exists. If you say "a pink chair which only I can see," I might be able to say a little bit more. But I think the problem lies in your phrase "this chair." Tell me more about the chair and I think I can make a sesnable existence claim about it."

Okay, though I used it I don't know much about this particular proof (if it is one). Years ago, I saw the example used in a television program (The professor charged her class to prove that a chair sitting in front of her did not exist. While the rest of the class was scrambling to come up with complicated proofs, one male student simply raised his hand and said, "What chair?"--an answer which the professor said was correct.) Admittedly, the show was not a particularly factual or intellectual program (please don't laugh--it was Sabrina the Teenage Witch) but I do tend to be pretty good at picking out of things what is true and what is fantasy.

Hey A,

"I stand corrected--you are correct in that it depends upon the assumptions which one begins upon. If one begins from a position that God exists, then the nonexistence of said entity is, in fact, a positive claim. If one begins from a position of nonexistence, the reverse is true."

So would you agree then that as it is well-defined, the claim that a certain entity exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that the entity does not exist is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that we can not know if it exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), and the statement that I'm not sure if it exists is also valid, but no real need of proof because it is only a statement of a person's knowledge.

I would add there are statements that for me would personally fall into the last category. For example, I heard a debate on atheism vs. theism where the atheist debater said "Suppose I tell you that I am god and that I just created all of you 5 seconds ago with all the info in your head that you have now, all the past memories in your head, etc. You would have no way to refute that." I thought about it, and the truth is, I think he's right. There is no way to refute that. And if that is the case, there is nothing I can do about it. But I suppose I am agnostic on that question.

"I suppose it's also true that the only position which needs to prove nothing is the agnostic."

Indeed, at least the agnostic who says they aren't sure. Some people who say we can't know call themselves agnostic. Do you agree with my distinction?

"I still think that it's somewhat of a wash as a position though--one does not need definitive proof in order to hold a belief."

I agree. And this gets into the theory of justification; what are grounds for holding a belief? I'd say it is reasonable to hold a belief if it is more probable than its negation. Now I"m not saying one necessarily SHOULD hold a belief if they figure that there is a 51% chance of it being true and 49% chance of it being false, but I'd say they are justified if they do wish to hold it.

But yeah, I would never hold you to being 100% sure about a belief.

"Okay, though I used it I don't know much about this particular proof (if it is one). Years ago, I saw the example used in a television program (The professor charged her class to prove that a chair sitting in front of her did not exist. While the rest of the class was scrambling to come up with complicated proofs, one male student simply raised his hand and said, "What chair?"--an answer which the professor said was correct.) Admittedly, the show was not a particularly factual or intellectual program (please don't laugh--it was Sabrina the Teenage Witch) but I do tend to be pretty good at picking out of things what is true and what is fantasy."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself from laughing! Even though it was on that show, that of course, does not make the example irrelevant. It took me a minute to get it. That is interesting, but I think the problem is that the chair that the teacher was talking about was not well-defined. But it still is an interesting exercise in philosophical thinking.

Bobby,

"So would you agree then that as it is well-defined, the claim that a certain entity exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that the entity does not exist is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that we can not know if it exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), and the statement that I'm not sure if it exists is also valid, but no real need of proof because it is only a statement of a person's knowledge.”

I might disagree with that last bit (the claim that we can not know if it exists is in need of proof). Technically, that’s what agnosticism means. In common usage, it is often taken to mean a person who is unsure about the existence of a deity. In truth, that is incorrect; agnosticism is the belief that there can never be proof in either direction as to whether there is or is not a deity. (A side note—many atheists actually exhibit agnostic tendencies and yet still maintain the belief that God does not exist. I fall into this category.) To me it follows logically that if one must offer proof to support one of two contrasting truth claims and cannot do so (because, let’s face it…there are very few things which we can ever have definitive proof of), that one could set forth the claim that we can never know and then not need to prove this assertion.

“I would add there are statements that for me would personally fall into the last category. For example, I heard a debate on atheism vs. theism where the atheist debater said "Suppose I tell you that I am god and that I just created all of you 5 seconds ago with all the info in your head that you have now, all the past memories in your head, etc. You would have no way to refute that." I thought about it, and the truth is, I think he's right. There is no way to refute that. And if that is the case, there is nothing I can do about it. But I suppose I am agnostic on that question.”

That’s interesting.

“Indeed, at least the agnostic who says they aren't sure. Some people who say we can't know call themselves agnostic. Do you agree with my distinction?”

I’d argue that the first is a misuse of the term agnostic. (One which Ray Comfort never seems to figure out.)

“I agree. And this gets into the theory of justification; what are grounds for holding a belief? I'd say it is reasonable to hold a belief if it is more probable than its negation.”

Agreed.

“Now I"m not saying one necessarily SHOULD hold a belief if they figure that there is a 51% chance of it being true and 49% chance of it being false, but I'd say they are justified if they do wish to hold it.”

Indeed. Though most people (myself included) are not that logical and objective when it comes to beliefs and whether or not to hold them.

“But yeah, I would never hold you to being 100% sure about a belief.”

The only time I ask for definitive proof is when someone else is trying to tell me that my belief(s) are wrong.

"Sorry, I couldn't help myself from laughing!”

Hey, no fair! I’m sure you used to watch weird stuff when you were younger that seems quite ridiculous now.

“It took me a minute to get it. That is interesting, but I think the problem is that the chair that the teacher was talking about was not well-defined. But it still is an interesting exercise in philosophical thinking.”

It is, but I’m not sure that I entirely buy it. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of something does not mean that it no longer exists.

Wow, so we're actually in pretty good agreement! Couple things though...

"I might disagree with that last bit (the claim that we can not know if it exists is in need of proof). Technically, that’s what agnosticism means. In common usage, it is often taken to mean a person who is unsure about the existence of a deity. In truth, that is incorrect; agnosticism is the belief that there can never be proof in either direction as to whether there is or is not a deity. (A side note—many atheists actually exhibit agnostic tendencies and yet still maintain the belief that God does not exist. I fall into this category.)"

I have no problem with defining agnosticism like that.

"To me it follows logically that if one must offer proof to support one of two contrasting truth claims and cannot do so (because, let’s face it…there are very few things which we can ever have definitive proof of), that one could set forth the claim that we can never know and then not need to prove this assertion."

Well, theists believe that they can offer proofs (in the philosophical sense, not the mathematical sense; like we discussed before, based on premises more likely than their negation) for the existence of God. But the fact that many people do not accept the proof shouldn't imply that the truth can not be known. Or maybe this is what you mean? You mentioned above that no one can tell you you are wrong if they are not 100% sure of their belief.

So I may be way off base here, but are you saying that everyone has to agree in order to know something? Like, would you say that we KNOW that the earth is round? Maybe explain your position a little more, I think I'm way off.

"I’d argue that the first is a misuse of the term agnostic. (One which Ray Comfort never seems to figure out.)"

Haha! I kinda like Ray Comfort. He has a nice mustache. Did you happen to see the debate on the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs. the Rational Response Squad? Horrible! It was a really pathetic debate. I think it was on NBC or something about a year ago. I watched it on YouTube. Don't watch it :)

"Hey, no fair! I’m sure you used to watch weird stuff when you were younger that seems quite ridiculous now."

While we're discussing Melissa Joan Hart, I used to watch "Clarissa Explains it All." There, we're even.

But let's see, the discussion of the burden of proof and agnosticism is somewhat of a moot point because you claim atheism, ehh? Now the burden of proof is on me to define what I mean by the statement "God exists" and then you can let me know how what you think of it, and we'll go from there.

So by God (and this is all subject to slight tweaking if needed) I mean a divine personal being who reigns supreme [over us and all of time, space, and matter as well as any other non-corporal entities (if they exist)].

To say that X exists, I mean that the essence of X is actualized in some being.

Have a good evening.

Bobby,

“Well, theists believe that they can offer proofs (in the philosophical sense, not the mathematical sense; like we discussed before, based on premises more likely than their negation) for the existence of God. But the fact that many people do not accept the proof shouldn't imply that the truth can not be known. Or maybe this is what you mean? You mentioned above that no one can tell you you are wrong if they are not 100% sure of their belief.”

I assume you're referring to things like Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs or something similar. (Please, please, please don't tell me you're going bring up the kinds of thing that Ray Comfort does--“a building has a builder, ect.” That man needs to be told (A.) the definition of a circular argument and (B.) that avoiding questions does not improve your point.) The problem is that philosophically its very hard to prove anything definitively—subjective interpretation gets in the way. Then you get into the whole realm of “well, just because we can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it can't be true” (one of my objections to the Five Proofs). In my opinion (and I think a good portion of the Philo Society), philosophy isn't about deciding anything—it's about learning how to think and how to question.

When I was talking about how the truth cannot be known, I was only referring to the existence/non-existence of God. In my opinion, there can never be proof either way. Those who believe will see proof wherever they look and those who do not will see nothing that they do not expect to see (yes, I fall into this category—I was going through it at one point with a friend who kept trying to convert me and there was literally nothing that could make me believe.) This does not mean that the truth cannot exist but only that we cannot known it.

Well, they can try (to tell me I'm wrong). It annoys me though because I'm not an unreasonable person and I don't hold absurd beliefs (well, MK might have a different opinion on the subject, though my comments about children got taken in the wrong way. I don't advocate letting your kids run naked through the streets and eating only candy—I advocate waiting and supplying the child with an adequate enough base so that he/she can decide things like religion for him/herself.) If someone is going to tell me that I am flat-out wrong and that they are unquestionably right, I ask that they have definitive proof (this is why I don't try to convert people). I don't think that that is unreasonable.

“So I may be way off base here, but are you saying that everyone has to agree in order to know something? Like, would you say that we KNOW that the earth is round? Maybe explain your position a little more, I think I'm way off.”

You're a little off—I don't believe that consensus has anything to do with knowledge. I believe that one can never definitively “know” anything unless that individual discovers it for him-or-herself. I've been told that the earth is round, but how do I know that this information is true unless I go out and discover it for myself? That said, I do not discount the wealth of knowledge that mankind has accumulated—I simply believe that it is a different type of knowledge that one can never objectively, definitively know.

“Haha! I kinda like Ray Comfort. He has a nice mustache. Did you happen to see the debate on the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs. the Rational Response Squad? Horrible! It was a really pathetic debate. I think it was on NBC or something about a year ago. I watched it on YouTube. Don't watch it :)”

Don't worry, I won't. He annoys me in any case—he is wilfully ignorant of both atheism and agnosticism. Many of his “proofs” (an atheist's worst nightmare—the banana!) are absolutely laughable and I personally feel that he is nothing more than a media-loving attention seeker.

“While we're discussing Melissa Joan Hart, I used to watch "Clarissa Explains it All." There, we're even.”

Original Power Rangers.

“But let's see, the discussion of the burden of proof and agnosticism is somewhat of a moot point because you claim atheism, ehh? Now the burden of proof is on me to define what I mean by the statement "God exists" and then you can let me know how what you think of it, and we'll go from there.”

Fair enough—I should warn you, though, no one's been able to convince that any form of deity exists and it isn't for lack of trying.

“So by God (and this is all subject to slight tweaking if needed) I mean a divine personal being who reigns supreme [over us and all of time, space, and matter as well as any other non-corporal entities (if they exist)].
To say that X exists, I mean that the essence of X is actualized in some being.”

This is my understanding as well.

Have a good day.

A,

If it doesn't bother you, I want to try and keep these a little bit shorter than the ones we had back in the day. That probably won't happen, but we'll see...Mostly it was me who was doing all the yapping...

"I assume you're referring to things like Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs or something similar."

Yeah, more or less. I'll just lay out one that I like at the end for discussion.

"(Please, please, please don't tell me you're going bring up the kinds of thing that Ray Comfort does--“a building has a builder, ect.""

Haha, no. While obviously as a theist I think that it is true that the universe had a designer, I don't think it's a convincing argument. I don't arguments by analogy work too well, although it can provide evidence.

"The problem is that philosophically its very hard to prove anything definitively—subjective interpretation gets in the way."

Wait, but didn't we agree that as long as one is convinced that something is more probable than it's negation, then they are justified in holding it? I suppose I somewhat equate those ideas; that is, someone has proven a statement X to me if he has convinced me that X is more probable than its negation, in which case I am justified in holding that belief.

"When I was talking about how the truth cannot be known, I was only referring to the existence/non-existence of God. In my opinion, there can never be proof either way."

So you are an agnostic in the sense we defined above then, right?

"Original Power Rangers."

Continuing with the SNICK lineup, Roundhouse. Beat that!

"Fair enough—I should warn you, though, no one's been able to convince that any form of deity exists and it isn't for lack of trying."

I understand. This will be good to discuss then. So what I am going to do is propose one of my favorite arguments, the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm not going to try and defend the premises; I'll wait and see which one (or both) you reject. But here is the first argument to consider

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now there is no debate on whether or not that is a logically valid argument; the conclusion logically follows from the premises. So if you reject the conclusion, you must reject at least one premise.

The other thing is that you may accept the argument but see no reason to equate the "cause of the universe" with what I defined to be God. That is also on me to try and convince you of.

So let's start with the Kalam argument. If you accept it, we'll move on and I'll try and argue that the first cause is God. Otherwise, we can discuss the reasonableness of the premises and why one might reject them. Sound OK?

Bobby,

“If it doesn't bother you, I want to try and keep these a little bit shorter than the ones we had back in the day. That probably won't happen, but we'll see...Mostly it was me who was doing all the yapping...”

Somehow I don’t think we’ll be too successful.

“Haha, no. While obviously as a theist I think that it is true that the universe had a designer, I don't think it's a convincing argument. I don't arguments by analogy work too well, although it can provide evidence.”

In this case, flawed evidence. Just because we cannot conceive of it does not mean that it is not possible.

“Wait, but didn't we agree that as long as one is convinced that something is more probable than it's negation, then they are justified in holding it? I suppose I somewhat equate those ideas; that is, someone has proven a statement X to me if he has convinced me that X is more probable than its negation, in which case I am justified in holding that belief.”

Justification is different from definitive proof. One can be justified in having a belief and not have definitive proof for it.

“So you are an agnostic in the sense we defined above then, right?”

Correct. Technically, I am an atheist with agnostics tendencies. I admit that I have no definitive proof but still believe because definitive proof is not required. In my opinion, if believers (in the religious sense) are honest, they will admit this as well. That charge that to be an atheist one has to have absolute knowledge of the universe--it's true for believers as well.

“Continuing with the SNICK lineup, Roundhouse. Beat that!”

Los Luchadores

"I understand. This will be good to discuss then. So what I am going to do is propose one of my favorite arguments, the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm not going to try and defend the premises; I'll wait and see which one (or both) you reject. But here is the first argument to consider.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

It depends on what you mean by cause. If by cause, you mean some natural force that leads to some action (ie. the earthquake causing the rock to fall) then I agree with you. If you mean cause as in an intelligent cause, I disagree with you.

I don’t know enough about theoretical physics to argue this point, but I’ll bring it up anyway. Everything that we’re aware of has a cause. That does not, however, mean that everything has to have a cause. There is much in this world that we’re not aware of and it would foolish of us to assume that everything that has ever been in the universe must necessarily exist within the realms of that with which we have experience.

Oops...that was me.

A,

"Justification is different from definitive proof. One can be justified in having a belief and not have definitive proof for it."

Right, but I guess when I use the word proof, I just mean a compelling argument more probable than its negation. I think we're on the same page that the only time one should really use the word proof in its strongest sense is in mathematics??

"Los Luchadores"

Wow, so I hadn't heard of this before, but (as you know) it's a show about pro wrestling. Do you know any of my history with pro wrestling? If not, google "Bobby Bambino" and check out the very first page that pops up :)

OK. I'll try and keep my responses terse.

"It depends on what you mean by cause. If by cause, you mean some natural force that leads to some action (ie. the earthquake causing the rock to fall) then I agree with you. If you mean cause as in an intelligent cause, I disagree with you."

Well, all I mean by a cause is "something which brings about a change in something else." So in my case, the first something I would argue is God, the second something is the universe, and the change is the action of the universe's coming into existence. So I claim the the reason, or what it was that brought the universe into existence from non-existence is God.

"I don’t know enough about theoretical physics to argue this point, but I’ll bring it up anyway. Everything that we’re aware of has a cause."

So it seems to me that that statement should imply that the statement "(*)everything that begins to exist has a cause" [I'm labeling that statement (*) so I don't have to keep rewriting it whenever I want to refer back to it] is at least more probable than its negation. True, it does not irrefutably follow, but it seems to me that in light of any evidence to believe that things come into existence uncaused, there is no compelling reason to doubt that (*) is more reasonable than not.

And this is really the way the scientific method works; you take all the known data, and try and hypothesize the best possible explanation to fit that data. Could new data come up some day that changes what we now believe to be true? Sure. But up to this point, all human experience points to (*) being true.

Another question to consider is that if (*) is false, why don't we see this happening in the world? Wouldn't we expect to see things popping in and out of existence often? If the universe's existence is uncaused, why not something smaller, like say a tiger? My daughter is asleep in her crib in her room right now, and the last thing I'm worried about is a tiger simply popping into existence in her room and mauling her. Now that example is a bit flippant, but I think it illustrates the point that no one is REALLY concerned about things coming into being out of nothing. Again, I don't say it is 100% impossible, just that we have really no reason to think that they would. So, in light of a total lack of evidence or reason to the contrary, I see (*) as being quite probable, and justified for one to hold.

Sorry, wrote more than I intended to. Well, we know this was gonna happen. Talk with ya later!

Bobby,

Bobby,

“I think we're on the same page that the only time one should really use the word proof in its strongest sense is in mathematics??”
Agreed.

" Wow, so I hadn't heard of this before, but (as you know) it's a show about pro wrestling. Do you know any of my history with pro wrestling? If not, google "Bobby Bambino" and check out the very first page that pops up :) “

Okay, I’m actually confused. Is that really you or someone else?

“Well, all I mean by a cause is "something which brings about a change in something else." So in my case, the first something I would argue is God, the second something is the universe, and the change is the action of the universe's coming into existence. So I claim the the reason, or what it was that brought the universe into existence from non-existence is God.”

Going off of the first premise, couldn’t the cause be something else that we don’t understand?
“So it seems to me that that statement should imply that the statement "(*)everything that begins to exist has a cause" [I'm labeling that statement (*) so I don't have to keep rewriting it whenever I want to refer back to it] is at least more probable than its negation. True, it does not irrefutably follow, but it seems to me that in light of any evidence to believe that things come into existence uncaused, there is no compelling reason to doubt that (*) is more reasonable than not.”

It is reasonable, but I cringe away from absolutes.

“And this is really the way the scientific method works; you take all the known data, and try and hypothesize the best possible explanation to fit that data. Could new data come up some day that changes what we now believe to be true? Sure. But up to this point, all human experience points to (*) being true.”

True.

“Another question to consider is that if (*) is false, why don't we see this happening in the world? Wouldn't we expect to see things popping in and out of existence often?”

Perhaps because it takes a very specific sets of conditions and circumstances that have only occurred once, perhaps at the beginning of the universe.

“If the universe's existence is uncaused, why not something smaller, like say a tiger? My daughter is asleep in her crib in her room right now, and the last thing I'm worried about is a tiger simply popping into existence in her room and mauling her. Now that example is a bit flippant, but I think it illustrates the point that no one is REALLY concerned about things coming into being out of nothing. Again, I don't say it is 100% impossible, just that we have really no reason to think that they would. So, in light of a total lack of evidence or reason to the contrary, I see (*) as being quite probable, and justified for one to hold.”

Probably and justified yes, but remember that I ask for definitive proof if someone is trying to show me something. As much as I practically agree with you and your conclusions, a lack of experience is not and will never be proof.

A,

"Okay, I’m actually confused. Is that really you or someone else?"

Indeed, that is me. I was a pro wrestler for 8 years before I came out here for school. My brother makes a living as a pro wrestler. Strange, ehh?

So based on your responses, we may be at somewhat of an impasse. I may have misunderstood or whatever, but to be honest, whenever I am discussing the existence of God with a non-theist, the VERY BEST that I hope for is to convince the non-theist that belief in God is reasonable and that God's existence much more probable than not. So even on my own terms, I can not possibly expect to give you definitive proof.

That said, let's take a step back and think about the idea of definitive proof. I think last week you mentioned your belief in the famous "cogito ergo sum." You believe that you exist. But what about other minds? I think Descartes also said in his Discourse on Method when remarking on his cogito ergo sum something along the lines of "It could be the case that a demon is causing me to think I am seeing the world around me but that in reality it does not exist. But he can not be causing me to think I exist when in reality I don't exist." (something like that; not an exact quote) So how do you know (or maybe you don't) that a demon isn't causing you to see the world around you? In particular, would you say you have definitive proof that I exist?

It is also interesting to note that it can be the case that one has definitive proof of something but will not accept the conclusion. I have an example. It turns out that .9999... where the 9s go on FOREVER is equal to the number 1. They are the EXACT same number. Now I have shown the proof to people, an engineer in particular (who obviously is not dumb). The proof is of course air tight and definitive. After seeing the proof, he said "I understand it; but I don't believe it." He believed every single line, that every line followed from the one previous from it. There was nothing he could say that was wrong; he just for whatevr reason did not want to accept the conclusion.

Now I am in no way accusing you or any non-theist of doing this. In fact, it cuts both ways. But the point is that even given definitive proof, it can still be the case that someone will not agree with the conclusion. BTW, if you're interested, I can show you a proof or at least give you good reasons to see why it might be true. Have a great day; it looks like you were really, really busy with Chris and MK earlier. I'm gonna read it all now. Should be fun!

Bobby,

"Indeed, that is me. I was a pro wrestler for 8 years before I came out here for school. My brot