Jivin J’s Life Links 10-4-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Live Action blog points to 1 abortionist’s completely unscientific view about when life begins. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland abortionist Jill Meadows thinks “life begins, not at conception, but when it becomes meaningful, when ensoulment is possible, when viability and taking breath is possible. The miracle of life occurs at birth, she says.”
- Yesterday on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live, British television pundit Virginia Ironside said she would suffocate a suffering infant and that abortion was “a moral and unselfish act.”
- U of MI researchers have announced they’ve created a human embryonic stem cell line.
Oct.04, 2010 1:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
life begins, not at conception, but when it becomes meaningful
Meaningful to whom?
Look at the comments at the end of the article about this Ironside woman. Sadly, most of the commenters agree with her. I hope all Brits don’t feel that way!
Becomes meaningful? Life is ALWAYS meaningful. She’s a quack.
“life begin… when ensoulment is possible…”
What in the name of separation between church and state? And how is this even coherent with the rest of what she says? So you take your first breath, a soul enters your body, and your life has meaning all at the same time? What a bizarre view. Your body exists before you exist. You are a ghost in a machine. There is this body, and then “you” come along from who knows where and you enter that body. Weird.
Has this woman ever seen an ultrasound? If she has, how can she not be aware of the astounding idiocy of her position?
So Jill Meadows, what would you say to my friends who experienced stillbirth? No big deal? No life lost? So when they cry over their “dead child” you say what? That is was always just a body and their child’s soul never actually came to reside in that body and they should wipe their tears and get over it I guess. That baby was coming out and that soul was RIGHT THERE just WAITING to get into that baby’s body but oh well…no breath = no soul.
I wish the abortion lovers would shove it with any talk about “the miracle of life.” You kill for a living.
Ah, yes, and so goes the “scientific” viewpoint of the pro-choice mind…
the article about Jill Meadows is from my city’s local paper. :(
She used to work in high risk pregnancies and must have decided that there was more $ in destroying life rather than in helping it grow to birth.
Are you really trying to talk science about souls? There is no such thing as a soul and no proof saying otherwise.
You’re missing the point here. The more we know about how life is formed the sooner we will be able to create it ourselves.
So how would God, Jesus, and Mary’s conception be effected if we could make a woman pregnant without a man’s input? You see the more we learn about our world and ourselves scientifically the less we need a “God” to explain the things we don’t know. There is nobody on this planet that worships Apollo and his fiery chariot anymore because we now know how and why the sun crosses the sky everyday… What will happen to your god when we know scientifically how life is created, how we got here, and what the purpose of life is… Your religion will become mythology just like all the others…
Biggz, whether or not the soul exists doesn’t mean abortion is okay. In fact, it makes it even more egregious. And this pro-abort doctor seems to believe in a soul. Nancy Pelosi seems to believe in a “soul” (or whatever). There is no scientific evidence that women are pregnant with anything other than a human baby. It is impossible for such a thing to happen. So it seems to me, by your pro-abort mind, that it’s okay to discuss souls as long as the killing of unborn people remains legal, since that’s all you guys seem to care about. The fact that you devote so much of your time and energy supporting and celebrating the killing of innocent people is far creepier than any religious belief.
Are you really trying to talk science about souls? There is no such thing as a soul and no proof saying otherwise.
(Biggz,October 4th, 2010 at 6:36 pm, bolding mine)
Yeah, that’s sort of the point we’re driving at. Regardless of whether you believe in souls or not, their existence, or lack of same, is not empirically provable. And even among people who do believe in souls, who has a soul and when they get it are not subjects about which there is broad agreement. This makes “ensoulment” a terrible yardstick for when a life becomes valuable. Absolutely awful. And yet here is an abortionist, part of the supposedly “scientific and rational” side–the side to which you, by the way, ascribe–claiming that “life begins, not at conception, but…when ensoulment is possible.”
So, yeah. You’re right. Souls are not scientifically provable. You seem to be on a different page from the abortionists with that one, though. Maybe you should come over to our side of the fence? We have cookies and SCIENCE.
The fact remains that when biology is NOT on the pro-abort side (and it isn’t), they feel the need to respond philosophically, rather than scientifically, to the question of “when life begins.” It’s basically them changing the subject because they have to.
Biggz,
There’s more to religion than explaining why this is this way or that is that way. Please try a little tolerance. That was not why humans developed religion and that is not why religion will always happen in some way or other: religion is about, partly, explaining why we’re here and how it happened and such, but it is also about placing one within the world, about appreciation for the natural world, helping to define culture (art, customs, and so on and so forth), defining and organizing our morality, and many other reasons. Of course, these are not missed on atheists or agnostics by any means, but there are so many purposes behind belief, and to think about it is truly beautiful. I’m glad that our world has such beauty and humans have such beauty within- should we choose to use it.
And no one mentioned the spirituality of when life enters the soul. We have no idea what a soul is. And science will never know. But scientifically, life does not begin at birth. Please keep on topic instead of resorting to religious intolerance to seem superior. Look around you- there are many beautiful things. Enjoy one at least.
Ah…this explains a lot about Biggz…that’s what I figured. He believes in “no one” and “nothing”. Hopefully one day his eyes will be opened.
Pamela,
I’m going to disagree. Many atheists are pro-life for one, and two, whatever Biggz believes is up to him. We should all try and see the world through each other’s eyes. In the meantime, perhaps we should all try and focus on what we can do? Where we meet? I think that we can all securely believe in women’s rights. Pro-choice and pro-life. :)
Oh, hey, speaking of doing awesome stuff: I don’t have any money, but something you should all look at. http://www.savedarfur.org/
They’ve always got ways to get involved. :)
Ugh sorry Vannah, I can’t see the world through the eyes of someone who thinks its alright to murder a child.
Sydney M, as far as I can tell Biggz doesn’t think its alright to murder a child. Abort a fetus yes, murder a child no.
Pamela, it was my eyes being opened which dispelled what I see as the veil of religion.
A fetus is a child Cranium. I know, I carried one. “Trust women” okay?
Child:
[n] a young person of either sex (between birth and puberty); “she writes books for children”; “they’re just kids”; “`tiddler’ is a British term for youngsters”
[n] a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; “they had three children”; “they were able to send their kids to college”
[n] an immature childish person; “he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived”; “stop being a baby!”
[n] a member of a clan or tribe; “the children of Israel”
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=child
Is it each other’s or each others’? Oh, grammar- must thou be complicated? *hate grammar*
Cranium,
Perhaps you and I could talk your opinion on religion and abortion and environment such? I would be most curious to see this from your point of view, provided that you be willing to listen to mine. :)
Sydney,
How have you been? It seems like I haven’t talked to you in a long time. I agree that it is sometimes hard to see the world through different eyes- believe me- but it is the only way to understand completely. I like Abraham Lincoln’s quote for this: “I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.” This is the path that I’ve chosen for all things that I don’t understand: if I don’t see it from their eyes, make friends, then talk. I hope that this takes us further.
[n] a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age
So, a fetus somehow not human offspring?
Sydney, I’m with you. I saw my daughter on the ultrasound screen at 11 weeks. She yawned and sucked her thumb. Even the technician said, “Oh, wow, look at that!”
But I guess that’s just the behavior of “potential life” or a “potential human.” Whatever that means.
Vannah, I am aware that some atheists are pro-life. I wasn’t referring to being pro-life versus being pro-abortion. I was just referring to how bitter and angry and anti-God Biggz comes across all the time. He takes “shots” at Christianity every chance he gets.
I’m not talking about “Religion” either, Cranium. I’m talking about a PERSONAL relationship with the CREATOR of the Universe…God Himself.
That’s right Kel, it’s potential offspring. It hasn’t ‘sprung off’, it’s still ‘attached’ if you know what I mean.
Happy to discuss whatever Vannah. I will listen but if you say things that I think are foolish I will say so. And I expect the same from you. And you can call me whatever you want, others here do :-)
This is provided the mods don’t get peeved if we drift off topic.
I think this is a very interesting article, especially his three main points in the latter half:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/6273403/lets-hear-it-for-contempt.thtml
That’s right Kel, it’s potential offspring. It hasn’t ‘sprung off’, it’s still ‘attached’ if you know what I mean.
So, though it’s a wholly unique human being, the product of sexual reproduction (no new genetic information added since conception), it’s “potential?”
And is the full term, newly born child still attached by umbilical cord to the placenta (the placenta being part of the child, not the mother) also “potential?”
Yes Kel, that’s right, it’s potential.
The semantics can be whatever you wish. It doesn’t really matter does it.
Cranium-
I’m glad- I certainly hope to be held to a high standard and will hold others to a more intelligent standard as well.
I don’t wish to derail the conversation here, so we can chat for as long as the moderators don’t mind. The moderators are nice, though. They’ve always been quite nice to me.
So I’ve been considering some of what I have said in the past year or so on this blog. Some of what I have said I’m very ashamed of. I don’t want to sound like a stupid person. So I want to start by saying I’m sorry for being stupid about pro-choice ideologies. I was wrong and refused to see your point of view- I’ve learned that we disagree, but that it is not because you’re evil and hate kids. I mean, you probably never read that comment, and I never said that specifically, but know that this is what I believe: Pro-choice people believe that they are doing the right thing, too. Pro-life people don’t hate women. Pro-choice people don’t hate children. Things will be much easier for everyone if we just deal with this fact right now.
I believe in equality for all people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, orientation, age, abilities, nationality, and so on and so forth. I’m sure you feel the same way, but could you elaborate on why you feel differently for fetuses? What is it exactly about fetuses that you feel makes them “potential people” as opposed to “people?”
Call it what you wish Pamela. There is no deity in any form. Creationism is, well, created by man.
To put it in the simplest term Vannah, they just don’t matter. I know that sounds appalling but it is what it amounts to. All the arguments about when life begins, when is it human, what do scientists and dictionaries say, what does your religion say, what does your conscience say, womens ownership of their bodies – it just doesn’t seem to matter.
Women have always had abortions and they always will. Most people see the abortion debate as little different to a debate on pre-marital sex. Certain elements are aghast that it takes place, for whatever reason, but most people just do it.
The fact is that there are physiological differences between fetuses and post-birth babies, perhaps minor, but those differences make all the difference.
Ugh sorry Vannah, I can’t see the world through the eyes of someone who thinks its alright to murder a child.
What about the eyes of someone who doesn’t believe they’re murdering a child?
How can you ever hope to change someone’s mind if you can’t bring yourself to understand it in the first place?
At birth? Developmentally, we humans happen to pop out at a certain stage of early development. Some mammals pop out earlier in the developmental process, and some later. Kittens are even born at a point where their eyes are not yet open! Really! I swear!!
Frogs emerge from their womb, which is not even in their mother’s body!! And at a point before they have developed legs!!! In fact, they were never in their momma’s womb! Daddy fertilized them right there in the middle of the pond, out in front of everyone!
A butterfly appears from its womb before it resembles anything like a butterfly! Nary a wing in sight!!
Little Joey pops out as a tiny thing, and crawls into a pseudo womb for a while longer, before he ends up anything resembling momma kangaroo!!
We have single-cell organisms on this planet. In fact, they are probably the most populous “life form.” They meet the definitions of life, don’t they? The doctors should know, since these single-cell organisms cause so much illness. Yet, they aren’t even “born”!! They are “born” by splitting in half, in a certain way. Once one splits into two, each single-cell organism is its own independent living organism. Once they split, when do they begin being alive? Do they swim around for 9 months before they are deemed alive? Or is it pretty much once the single-cell organism splits into two that, somewhere right around that time, there are suddenly two? And how can this happen with no virginia to pass through?
Does a chicken become alive at the moment its egg passes through the momma chicken’s virginia? I guess so, according to the good doctor. But isn’t the egg like a womb? Isn’t the developing proto-chicken totally dependent on momma chicken? So how can it be considered “alive” if it is totally dependent? Maybe we need to figure out if it feels pain, or is sentient?
So, what is in the egg, not in the mother but under the mother? A bunch of roiling biological matter? That somehow at some point becomes animated? I guess as soon as the eggshell cracks?
The chick cracks its own egg: so, it is not yet alive, it struggles to crack the eggshell, then succeeds under its own power to crack the eggshell and then becomes alive?
Oh, thanks, Doctor. I was wondering about that. Some inanimate clump of down and guts cracks a shell and gets trasmogrified into a chick. Got it. I am ready for my test.
I may fail the part about “vital signs.” Pulse, blood pressure, temperature, and heart rate. Oh, and the fifth “vital sign:” – pain. Sure, a fetus in the womb might have each of these, but that has nothing to do with the fetus being animated. We ought to rename the “vital signs.”
Yes, birth is a pretty clear, noticable event along the life development process. But you would be challenged to find two species where birth happens at the same point in the developmental trajectory.
All of this makes the idea that life begins at birth the most foolish idea.
It is only a throw-away answer to a supportive audience of people who don’t mind acepting non-answers in order to hold on to their foolish view of the world a little bit longer.
a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age;
Thanks Cranium. You just proved my point. My own ob/gyn referred to my son as “the baby”. Thats what he was. I can show you ultrasounds with his perfect angelic face and arms and legs and fingers and toes. Not potential life Cranium but a real human life. Not “potential baby” but a real baby. Wrap your mind around it Cranium. I know its shocking, but none of your ridiculous troll statements or any of the absurdities spouted by Biggz is going to change my mind when I have LIVED IT. I carried a fetus that was undeniably a human child. I watched him develop through many ultrasounds. He was formed entirely by 5/6 weeks. He just got bigger. That was the only difference. He was as much a person with worth as you or as me.
I can feel empathy for a woman who feels she HAS to abort but I can never understand or “see through the eyes” of someone who is confronted with proof of the humanity of the unborn and has a heart so cold and evil that murdering a child just doesn’t matter to them. I can pray for them and pray for God’s mercy but I can’t empathize with evil. Sorry. Can you empathize with Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you try to “see the world through his eyes” and understand why he did what he did? No? Well there you go. I view people who would see a photo of an aborted child and still not care as evil.
Alexandra,
Hey, how are you?
Cranium,
I see then. We class this thing on two different levels: you a level of morality (like living with someone, let’s say, before marriage) that will happen regardless of social and legal implications, and I place it on a level of human suffering, as a result of what we humans (especially women and children lack). This makes it far easier to discuss then, since we can no see our respective arguments properly.
I have too difficult of a time seeing what happens when people are forced to adapt to difficult circumstances by committing such a heinous act. Around the world, people die from this. In Africa, in Asia, in South America, in Europe, or North America. It happens, but I cannot brush it off knowing that it is none of my business because in the events of all of this, it is a result of terrible injustice. Women should not have to get pregnant in the first place because of lack of birth control or because of rape. Women should not have to pick between careers, school, or other children and pregnancy. I believe passionately in reproductive health, so I believe passionately in taking away situations that ought not exist and replacing them with empowerment. Maybe I’m a drama queen (I do have a tendency to make everything a crisis…admittedly…) or maybe I care so deeply because this is my gender- I don’t know. I think that it’s this: I have something of a bleeding heart for anyone in situations that they didn’t ask to be in. I don’t want to leave this Earth the same, or worse, as when I came in. I want to walk through it and know that I was a friend and source of comfort. I want to know that things will be okay. And that, more than that, things are okay for everyone, and people aren’t afraid of what they don’t understand, so they have the courage to try it.
I want that for women, children, and men the world over. I’m sure that you do, too. Thoughts?
Biggz: “Are you really trying to talk science about souls? There is no such thing as a soul and no proof saying otherwise.”
Tell it to the abortionist who is trying to use absence of a soul as a reason to kill an embryonic human being (as we can SCIENTIFICALLY call her/him).
Cranium: “Women have always had abortions and they always will.”
Rapists have always raped and they always will.
“Most people see the abortion debate as little different to a debate on pre-marital sex.”
Good grief, how absurd is that? Most people see the two topics to be enormously different.
“The fact is that there are physiological differences between fetuses and post-birth babies, perhaps minor, but those differences make all the difference.”
They “make all the difference” if you’re working backwards in a desperate attempt to find some profound “difference” you can try to use to call a human being a non-human being.
Yes Kel, that’s right, it’s potential.
The semantics can be whatever you wish. It doesn’t really matter does it.
Actually, it does matter. Dehumanizing language matters immensely.
And thank you for confirming the fact that you wouldn’t bat an eye if a mother suffocated her newborn child while it was still attached to the umbilical cord. I still say you’d make a fine abortionist.
‘a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age;
Thanks Cranium. You just proved my point’ – you wish! Offspring refers to post birth.
‘My own ob/gyn referred to my son as “the baby”.’ – fine. Opinion.
‘I can show you ultrasounds…’ – so can I, I am a parent.
‘Not “potential baby” but a real baby’ – opinion, ‘wrap your mind around it’.
‘He was formed entirely by 5/6 weeks. He just got bigger. That was the only difference.’ – er, no.
It’s more complex than that Vannah. Behind the whole morality plays and indeed on the levels of human suffering lies power, ownership and control. These are the elements at play at all levels and in all arenas. On another thread Joe has stated basically that whatever needs to be done to prevent and punish abortion should be done. I pointed out that this would require the establishment of a ‘brutopian’ fascist regime. (NARAL’s scary sham ad….)
I want freedom and peace and equality for women, children and men. But it doesn’t seem to happen whilst power, ownership and control are fundamentally the only tools of certain doctrines – not all of them faith based I must add.
bmmg39 – your analogy is the same hoary old canard I’ve heard so often. People have always eaten and they always will. People have always made music and they always will. What has four legs and is furry? A dog! This is a picture of an animal with four legs and fur, therefore it is a dog – http://www.catfacts.org/
Your denial of the way people think and behave is not going to change anything.
Cranium,
I agree completely. But humans organize themselves inevitably into complex social structures. It is a requirement of our species- such an intelligent species requires a complex order (love anthropology!). The challenge that faces us now is to sift through what works and what doesn’t work, correctly identifying the sources of disease that threaten our culture- it’s one thing to say, “Women need this and this.” And it is another entirely to examine the development of women’s rights and duties (as dictated by society and movements), to comprehend entirely where the power is, where it will be, what’s going on. I think that our societies are more complicated than the human genome!
Ultimately, the challenge is to try and make sense of it all, map it all out, and develop the best structure that we can. This is obviously easier said than done. And there is also, without doubt, questions of how do we consider what stays and what is lost in reform? It’s a very fascinating thing for me. I’m actually writing about it right now. It’s amazing that you mention it. My essay on women in literature is trying to open up a path to studying, in particular, the development of women in literature, in art, and in humanity. It won’t be long enough to cover all that needs to be covered- that would require an entire library, no doubt. But with luck it will serve as a catalyst for my thoughts and keep me organized and motivated on the journey to mapping out human nature (as opposed to said genomes). :)
Perhaps then we can learn the true development of social injustice. As well as power, how it shifts, and so on and so forth.
I’m sorry, but I’m tired of seeing/hearing people complain about people not using scientific data, and then refuse to use a medical dictionary to define “child”, saying, “It’s only semantics.” Baloney. It’s not semantics, the medical community defines both the born and the unborn as children. The unborn are not potential children, but actual children. They are the result of the union of the male sperm and female ovum. Scientifically, the result of two things coming together is a child, or offspring.
child definition
Pronunciation: /?ch?(?)ld/
Function: n
pl chil·dren ; Pronunciation: /?chil-dr?n, -d?rn/
1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth
— with child : PREGNANT
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
child (ch?ld)
n.
A person between birth and puberty.
An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
child
Etymology: AS, cild
1 a person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence.
2 an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant.
3 an offspring or descendant; a son or daughter or a member of a particular tribe or clan.
4 one who is like a child or immature.
Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
Here are the other definitions of “child”, which did not come specifically from medical dictionaries:
child
/t?a?ld/ [chahyld]
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person: He’s such a child about money.
6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed.
7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century.
8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine.
9. British Dialect Archaic . a female infant.
10. Archaic . childe.
—Idiom
11. with child, pregnant: She’s with child.
Origin:
bef. 950; ME; OE cild; akin to Goth kilthai womb
—Related forms
childless, adjective
child·less·ness, noun
If a fetus were not significant, and were not considered human, then doctors would not do surgery on the unborn, there would not be laws against drinking while pregnant, those born with fetal alcohol syndrome would not be taken from their mothers and their mothers accused of child abuse, etc.
Therefore, child, infant, offspring, et cetera do not only refer to those who have been born. The scientific definition of a child is not going to change, because, scientifically, it cannot change, because scientific fact does not change. The way people think and behave is one thing, and, yes, they change, because opinions change. Legal definition may change, but legal definitions are not scientific, but hold the definitions the people give to words at a specific time and in a specific place. Legal definitions are opinions. However, actual scientific fact does not change, because it is fact based on science, not opinion.
Fact: The product of a union is a child.
Fact: The union of sperm and ovum creates a product.
Fact: Humans can only beget other humans
Fact: Therefore, the product of the union of human sperm and ovum is a human child, regardless of what popular opinion may be.
‘I think that our societies are more complicated than the human genome!’ – I like that! They also evolve. Your assessment of the situation is insightful.
‘And there is also, without doubt, questions of how do we consider what stays and what is lost in reform?’ The concept of what stays and what goes is very interesting. My observation is that it is always towards more freedoms. Release of slaves. Allowing women to vote. Equal pay (well the concept of it anyway). Legalizing abortion.
Look what happened when they tried prohibition. Look how successful the ‘war on drugs’ has been. Imagine what would happen if they tried to stop women voting. Imagine what would happen if they tried to reinstate slavery. Imagine what would happen if they tried to re-criminalize abortion.
‘Mapping out human nature’ – talk about eating an elephant, good luck with that one! :-)
I would be very interested in what you produce in relation to women in literature, the arts and humanity. Did you know that women originally had to use ancient statues for ‘life’ studies as they were not permitted to view real nudes? In some places anyway.
Yeah, mapping human nature will be a lifetime job. But I like my work. A lot. :D
I might point out that I’m pro-life- sort of, but I understand your point (I’m less focused at present with making abortion illegal so much as making it less common and increasing the status of voiceless, marginalized people- we can talk legality later, once we’ve walked distances).
Well, I would say that I’m more of a moderate in these waters. Somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-moderate. Yeah! But technically, I fit the definition of pro-life. I have a thing for the underdog. Anyhow, thus far, this conversation has been successful, I think. :)
I didn’t know that about the women in life studies. Huh. That’s so hard to imagine. We’ve come quite a ways.
You might need to extrapolate a little on what you mean by mapping human nature. My first thought is that it would be a map so complex that no computer even thought of yet would be capable of generating or presenting it.
I think human nature changes. It is impacted by environment and doctrine. It is certainly impacted by mental illness. The basic infrastructure may not be too complex but boy, do we cloak it in coats of many colors.
I feel that the people here are NOT going to let you get away with claiming to be pro-life in light of what you have said.
Who is the underdog in the pro-choice/anti-choice scenario? I don’t mean the topic combatants, I mean is it the woman or the fetus? Based on what? What about ‘circumstances’?
I don’t think there is a man alive who as yet truly grasps what it would take to create true equality for women. The two beasts are quite different so men cannot compare womens positions to anything they ‘know’. We know how good men are at understanding women :-) – so there is a long way to go to achieve a state where the fact that equality does not mean ‘the same’ is firstly, realised; and more importantly, successfully dealt with. We’ve still got a long way to go.
“when we know scientifically… what the purpose of life is”
That’s a religious question, not a scientific question. Of course, science is your religion. What does science tell you is your purpose? Eat, excrete, maintain homeostasis, grow, adapt, reproduce? Oh wait, scratch that last one. Doesn’t sound like a meaningful existence to me.
Equality is a tricky thing.
Morally, I am my husband’s equal. We are both human beings; I believe God created us both in His image.
In terms of raw physical strength, I will never be my husband’s equal, though he is not a particularly strong man.
But there is so much I have that he can never experience–the miracle of conceiving a child within my own body, nurturing that child with a biological link that goes so much deeper than the physical, and continuing that nurturing with my body by breastfeeding. I have an instinctive emotional understanding which few men can match, though I’m not a particularly emotionally aware woman. My emotional understanding gives me greater abilities to empathize with my children and the ability to build community. (And on the minus side, I get mood swings and quite a bit more emotional instability).
These differences are not a construct of society and we eradicate them at our peril and to our loss. I don’t want a false equality that comes from sabotaging my equality, blunting my faculties, or taking on the role our society traditionally assigns to men.
I want the freedom to enter into a relationship with a man which will last for a lifetime, a man who wants a lifetime with me. I want the security of knowing that he will support me and care for me as I go through the difficulties of pregnancy, and the mind-destroying sleep deprivation before our children learn to sleep. I want to know that he will accept each child God sends us with love, and marvel that again God has done an unsearchable miracle. I want to know that I will be the one to carry my babies, to nurse them with the life-giving, irreplaceable food God has created uniquely through a woman’s breast, to bond with them and to be the one they bond with, to care for them and raise them day to day. I want to know that no one will ever try to separate me from my children while they are little without my consent.
I find my freedom, equality, and security in my marriage to a Christian man and in being a homeschooling mom and in not preventing the conception of children.
cranium: “bmmg39 – your analogy is the same hoary old canard I’ve heard so often.”
Perhaps if you side were to find even the slightest success in refuting the “hoary old canard” it wouldn’t be used to counter your “you’ll never stop all abortions” argument.
Cranium and Biggz have both completely missed the point and have wasted a lot of breath on this thread.
An abortionist was justifying abortion by claiming a fetus doesn’t receive his/her soul until viability or birth. This is a completely unscientific and unprovable statement – it is in fact, a religious belief. So, the point Biggz and Cranium have missed here is simply this: why is it not okay for prolifers to bring religion into the equation, while it’s somehow okay for prochoicers to use religion to justify their views? This is nothing but a double standard and a ridiculous one at that. Prochoicers pride themselves on their so-called science and rationality and then they go and make statements about nebulous souls hovering around waiting for a fetal robot to be born so they can snatch a body; or claim that the souls of aborted fetuses return to heaven and wait for a new fetal body (reincarnation). This is religion, not science, and it’s the pro-aborts spouting it.
It should also be noted that claiming “personhood” begins with the development of consciousness and/or the first breath of air (nevermind that the fetus has been using his/her mother’s oxygen for 9 mos) is nothing but doublespeak for religious views concerning ensoulment. Personhood (to them) is equated with ensoulment; which is a religious belief. Now they might claim to be atheists and whatnot, but their personhood views contradict them. You can’t have it both ways. If a human being can exist for a time without being a “person” then what on earth is a person (if not a human being)? Animals are not persons. Now, if a person is actually a “soul/spirit” and you don’t even believe in a literal soul, than the word “person” is completely meaningless – unless it simply means “human being” – yet pro-aborts are continually claiming that fetuses are “human beings but not persons” (whatever that means). Personhood thus cannot be the defining measure between humanity and sub-humanity – otherwise, you’ve brought religion into the equation (a “soul”). Therefore, a fetus being a member of the homo sapien species, is thus also, by default, a person. To claim otherwise is nothing but smoke and mirrors to justify the dehumanization and mass slaughter of our preborn children/offspring.
bmmg39 – I don’t need to ‘refute’ it, just point out that it is valueless.
Abortion has always been with us.
Murder has always been with us.
Eating has always been with us.
Walking has always been with us.
Stealing has always been with us.
Music has always been with us.
What’s the point?
Bekah, I do not recall entering into the discussion on souls, at all.
cranium
October 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Bekah, I do not recall entering into the discussion on souls, at all.
It was mostly Biggz. He was criticizing religious prolifers, despite the fact that the article was about a prochoicer using religious beliefs to justify abortion. But, here was one statement you did make:
Pamela, it was my eyes being opened which dispelled what I see as the veil of religion.
Prolife or prochoice, many people see the world through the veil of their religion. I often come across the attitude that prolifers are religious and prochoicers are scientific, but this is not the truth. There are just as many religious prochoicers out there as there are religious prolifers. And just as many secular and/or atheist prolifers and prochoicers, too. The point being made here is that if a prolifer can’t bring religion into the debate, why is it okay for the prochoicer to use religion to the same end? It’s a double standard.
At any rate, I have a question for you concerning your Atheism and Darwinianism:
If you truly believe that your brain evolved gradually without the guidance of intelligent design, how can you trust it now to be coming to the correct conclusions about abortion? To put it another way: You’ve mentioned logic and rationality before, but tell me, how does rationality evolve into existence? It (rationality) is a supernatural phenomenon, not a biological one.
I see someone has been reading their Plantinga, Bekah… nice!
haha Never heard of Plantinga! :) Now, C.S. Lewis, on the other hand…. Now there was a true genius.
Oh man, that’s a shame! Plantinga is probably the greatest Christian philosopher of the 20th century. He is the one who originally come up with the argument you outlined to Cranium. It is called the “Evolutionary argument against Naturalism.” He expounds and defends this in his book “Warrant and Proper Function.” Essentially, as you outlined above, if evolution occurred via natural selection, then we evolved first and foremost for SURVIVAL, not necessarily for our cognitive faculties to recognize and critique truth claims. Plantinga gives many examples of how our ability to survive may have evolved while our cognitive faculties may not be functioning properly. Thus, being creatures programed and “designed” by evolution for survival, there is no reason to trust that our cognitive faculties are trustworthy, if naturalism is true. It is a very sophisticated, very clever argument which uses evolution to prove that naturalism is false.
Bobby Bambino
October 7th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Oh man, that’s a shame! Plantinga is probably the greatest Christian philosopher of the 20th century. He is the one who originally come up with the argument you outlined to Cranium.
He couldn’t have originally come up with it because C.S. Lewis used that very argument in both “Mere Christianity” and in “Miracles,” which were published in 1942 and 1947. :) I just wiki’d Plantinga and you’re right, it’s definitely the same argument. But Plantinga was only 10 and 12 years of age when C.S. Lewis published his books. ;) The interesting thing about C.S. Lewis is that he was an atheist and an evolutionist, but over time had to conclude that rationality could never have evolved naturally. He refers to himself as one of the most “reluctant converts in England.” hehe
Plantinga gives many examples of how our ability to survive may have evolved while our cognitive faculties may not be functioning properly. Thus, being creatures programed and “designed” by evolution for survival, there is no reason to trust that our cognitive faculties are trustworthy, if naturalism is true.
Yep. And here’s one of Plantinga’s examples:
“Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief… Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it… Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour.“
Bobby Bambino
October 7th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Essentially, as you outlined above, if evolution occurred via natural selection, then we evolved first and foremost for SURVIVAL, not necessarily for our cognitive faculties to recognize and critique truth claims.
This brings up another point. In terms of “survival,” abortion is actually quite counterproductive. Again, suggesting that “cognitive faculties” guided by naturalism are indeed coming to the wrong conclusions. Thanks to legalized abortion-on-demand, we are approaching a demographic winter. Countries like Europe, the U.S. and Canada are facing a severe tipping of the scales: death rates are higher than our birth rates (or are on the very brink of being higher)! In other words, we aren’t replacing ourselves. Other countries, like China and India, thanks to sex-selection abortion, have severe male-to-female ratio discrepancies, resulting in huge increases in rape, prostitution and crime – hardly conducive to long-term human survival!
Ah, okay. Well, okay, let me keep backtracking here then. Plantinga developed teh argument in a manner for high level philosophical academics in great detail. Not that CS Lewis was not one of these, but he had a different audience in mind. Either way, they’re both awesome.
Cranium, are you arguing that murdering your next-door neighbor or stealing from a store ought to be legal, since they happen even though they’re illegal?
No I’m not bmmg39 and I think you know it. I’m just stating that matching ‘abortion has always been with us’ with ‘murder has always been with us’ is no more valid than claiming ‘eating has always been with us’. It’s purely your personal perspective on whether it’s a good aspect or bad aspect of ‘the things that have always been with us’.
Bobby and Bekah, whilst I have not read Plantinga, I have read other christian philosophers but I take their theories with a large pinch of salt because they naturally set out with a pre-determined outcome. From what you have written of Plantinga’s theory, it tends to discard a lot of information which negate it somewhat.
Heard of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? Hm, I think you’ll find we’re not that close to the bottom any more. Writing, art, music, philosphy itself, education etc. etc. Are these themselves not indicative of ‘cognitive faculties’? Once we had ‘conquered’ our basic survival needs, we grew and developed in other spheres.
Sure, Cranium, because it’s such a huge stretch to equate killing human beings with…killing human beings.
Obviously many, many people don’t equate it as the link you claim bmmg39. That’s why – how many thousands? – each and every day have an abortion.
Whatever you say, Captain Circular Logic.
Surely it’s linear logic bmmg39. This very site tells us repeatedly of the astronomical number of abortions performed each and every day. So obviously the vast majority do not consider that it equates to ‘killing human beings’.
cranium
October 7th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Heard of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? Hm, I think you’ll find we’re not that close to the bottom any more. Writing, art, music, philosphy itself, education etc. etc. Are these themselves not indicative of ‘cognitive faculties’? Once we had ‘conquered’ our basic survival needs, we grew and developed in other spheres.
The point being made here, in a nutshell, is simply that once we had “conquered” our basic survival needs, of what biological need was there to develop the arts? Naturalism can only pertain to the physical, the natural. Rationality is not physical. It is metaphysical/supernatural. Therefore, how could such a phenomenon have evolved without intelligent design? No other animal on earth has developed rationality – why is that?
cranium
October 8th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Surely it’s linear logic bmmg39. This very site tells us repeatedly of the astronomical number of abortions performed each and every day. So obviously the vast majority do not consider that it equates to ‘killing human beings’.
If a fetus is not a human being, then what is it exactly?
In fact, cranium, what Bekah’s quote of yours is actually evidence for the claim we are trying to make! Of COURSE our cognitive faculties are geared towards art, music, etc. We know this. The question is why? How does naturalism account for this? If our main focus in evolution is survival, what purpose does the ability to write a sonnet serve? And furthermore, why should we trust our cognitive faculties? They didn’t evolve for for true belief, but for survival, so on the view on naturalism, we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties.
“Once we had ‘conquered’ our basic survival needs, we grew and developed in other sphere”
Why? What purpose did that serve? Why don’t we see animals who have conquered their basic survival needs beginning to grow in other areas? The fact that someone may have been conceived with a mutation in their genes which made them desire design beautiful paintings in no way adds to the idea of survival of the fittest. Why would that person have any evolutionary advantage over anyone else?
Bobby Bambino
October 8th, 2010 at 8:27 am
The fact that someone may have been conceived with a mutation in their genes which made them desire design beautiful paintings in no way adds to the idea of survival of the fittest. Why would that person have any evolutionary advantage over anyone else?
haha Yes. Especially if the mutant artist was unskilled in hunting meat and escaping predators at the same time. What could he do? Hold his canvas up as a shield against a hungry animal who’s about to pounce on him? ;)
We’ve come to learn today that artists usually have different brain wiring than say, athletes, for example. They’re more emotionally sensitive, more introverted, less physically powerful, less aggressive. There’s the warrior-class and the priestly-class. The priestly-class largely makes up the artists, musicians, poets and writers of our world. The warrior-class makes up our cops, soldiers, athletes, businessmen, politicians, etc. So, in terms of strict, unadulterated naturalism (i.e. no intelligent design) and “survival of the fittest,” the priestly-class could never have survived long enough to propagate. Their genetic mutations served no purpose in those days and naturalism would have discarded their DNA as unfit.
No, you’re clearly engaging in circular logic, Cranium. (Tangent: see my post about handles such as “freethinker” or “onewhoknows.”) You’re arguing that abortions are acceptable and should remain legal because zygotes/embryos/fetuses aren’t human beings, and that zygotes/embryos/fetuses aren’t human beings because there are so many abortions. By the way, public sentiment or social conventions do not trump biological fact. And need we recount yet again the Dred Scott decision?
What I actually said bmmg39, is that people, numerous people, obviously don’t see it as ‘killing human beings’ – it’s the entire phrase as a totality which doesn’t ring true for the majority.
Bekah and Bobby, you appear to have a very limited scope in regard to the brain, psychology and evolution (even if you only apply evolution as what happens now after the initial ‘creation’). Even other primates are now displaying added use of tools, altrusitic behavoir and in certain ways, artistic endeavour.
Our brain is part of our biology and it’s there that differentiation, change and expansion occur.
‘Rationality is not physical. It is metaphysical/supernatural’ – what, so eating and breathing are metaphysical/supernatural? I thought they were fairly ‘rational’ things to do.
‘Especially if the mutant artist was unskilled in hunting meat and escaping predators at the same time. What could he do? Hold his canvas up as a shield against a hungry animal who’s about to pounce on him’ – no, the presentation of his art pleased others to the extent that they protected him from the hungry animals. Is it not evolutionary of itself that someone who lacked a skill which thus endangered them found another way to circumvent that danger? People didn’t just fall over and die when they hurt their leg, they built a crutch. See, advancement through the need to survive.
cranium
October 8th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Even other primates are now displaying added use of tools, altrusitic behavoir and in certain ways, artistic endeavour.
Oh, you mean primates that are being taught by humans….? ;)
Our brain is part of our biology and it’s there that differentiation, change and expansion occur.
‘Rationality is not physical. It is metaphysical/supernatural’ – what, so eating and breathing are metaphysical/supernatural? I thought they were fairly ‘rational’ things to do.
So, now you’re suggesting that ALL animals are “rational” creatures because they know to eat and drink? It’s not rational, it’s instinctual. The body signals hunger and thirst and the body seeks to fulfill those needs.
Is it not evolutionary of itself that someone who lacked a skill which thus endangered them found another way to circumvent that danger? People didn’t just fall over and die when they hurt their leg, they built a crutch. See, advancement through the need to survive.
In this thread I am merely pointing to Intelligent Design vs. blind naturalism. I am saying that if evolution is true, it was guided. It never would have happened by chance.
“Even other primates are now displaying added use of tools, altrusitic behavoir and in certain ways, artistic endeavour.”
Some of them can even use computers!
Glad to see my prayers are still being answered Cranium.
“What I actually said bmmg39, is that people, numerous people, obviously don’t see it as ‘killing human beings’ – it’s the entire phrase as a totality which doesn’t ring true for the majority.”
Yah.
And slave-owners didn’t see what they were doing as “taking away human beings’ rights,” either.
And they were disabused of that myth, too.
And Cranium has yet to explain what a fetus is if it’s not a human being . . .