Excited Penguin Wrote:

Evie Wrote:If you don't know the difference between being against what a belief represents and being against a person then you're not only not as smart as you think you are (you already certainly aren't) but you're far less smart than you think.

Seriously?

And I thought you could see Sam Harris' point that it's possible to feel compassion for individuals and not hate the individuals despite being firmly against their beliefs.

Here's an example: I'm against the belief that abortions are wrong in 100% of circumstances, does this mean I'm against all individuals who are 100% pro life? No way, it doesn't represent the person as a whole. I can be extremely strongly against something that someone believes, but that doesn't make me against them because it doesn't make them a bad person at all.

Good intentions matter. I like to believe you have good intentions too but... I have great difficulty continuing to believe that...

You answered your own questions here. I don't disagree with any of it. You're just on my case and unable to think clearly about what I'm actually saying. You overreact and you assume I hold positions I never said I hold.

Just to be clear, this isn't the same when I say I wouldn't like to be friends with a Muslim or have a beer with them. In their case, you can actually tell what kind of people they are by what they believe. It's the same with Christians and Jews and other religions. You can't tell what kind of person an atheist is just because he's an atheist. You can however tell whether they are a good person or not, to a certain extent, if you inquire into whether they are also an antitheist.

I claim this. There's only three things a person can be. An antitheist, evil, or stupid.

Clearly, it is possible to be all three at once.

Excited Penguin Wrote:For what it's worth, most people fall into the latter category. But with Islam, I'm not willing to assume everyone falls fully into the latter, and not into the second. If you think that's somehow bad, I think your morals are kind of warped.

If you think assuming the worst about people you haven't met because they fall into a category that makes up 1/7 of the world's population is an example of good morality, I think your morals are kind of warped.

prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Catholic_Lady Wrote:I believe a human fetus is still a human being. This is just a matter of biology. Calling him/her a person, a baby, or a fetus... doesn't matter to me. So long as it is made clear that he/she is human.

Yes, they do still happen and this fact shouldn't be ignored or dismissed. These women do need our help and compassion. But I just don't think taking away another human life is the right or just answer.

A fetus is certainly biologically human. I don't agree that being biologically human is enough to make something a human being. One of your white blood cells is biologically human, but you wouldn't say it's a human being. That a fetus, particularly a first trimester fetus, is a human being is a theological position, not a scientific one. And I assume you're including embryos (less than 8 weeks after conception) with fetuses here, please let me know if you have a different stance on embryos.

And I don't think it's a theologically sound position for a Christian, either. In the Bible, it is clear that abortions are not considered murder (punishable with a fine if you hit a woman in such a way that she miscarries, if her husband chooses to pursue it) and are even prescribed in certain situations (make your wife drink a noxious potion if she's pregnant and you think it's not yours, if she miscarries, you were right). If God didn't see fit to proscribe abortion, who are modern Christians to put such an order in his mouth?

The Jewish position that the baby is 'ensouled' when it first draws breath is much more consistent with the contents of the OT, while the NT doesn't address the matter at all.

Catholic_Lady Wrote:

Excited Penguin Wrote:But why at the moment of conception? Do we consider a sperm quasi-human, prior to this?

I think we should consider whether it can suffer and maybe think(or be self-aware) in any way before we actually define it as a person and consider it with the same dignity we consider other humans. Otherwise we are merely talking about its potential to become a human being.

Because at the moment of conception a brand new set of human DNA is formed. A sperm is just a sex cell from the man's body, it isn't its own separate entity. 

To address your last paragraph though, a human fetus begins to feel pain about midway through the second trimester... at least as far as we can tell, though it could be before that. But I don't think the ability to feel pain should be the indicator to being human. If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.

An identical twin (or clone) does not have a brand new set of human DNA, just a copy of someone else's. What effect does this have on their status as a human entity?

Catholic_Lady Wrote:

Excited Penguin Wrote:Ok, I agree with that. But we're still talking about it's potential to become something more here, if you wish.
(Emphasis mine.)
That may very well be true, but then humans that can experience pain take precedence over human fetuses that can't. Would you agree with that or not and why?

I don't think so. I think it depends on which "rights" are taken away. If a woman allows the fetus to live, her right to not be pregnant for 9 months will be violated. But if she does not allow the fetus to live, its right to life will be violated. The right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant for 9 months, imho. Adoption should always be an option for her and I think we need better programs to help women through this difficult process.

In America (and most other places), the parents of the baby can't be required to even give blood to save the infant's life, let alone an organ. We can't even take organs from corpses to save someone's life if they didn't consent before they died. The reason this is the case is that it is too much of a violation of a person's autonomy for the State to step in and override their consent on such matters.

Why should a woman have less autonomy than a corpse?

(February 3, 2016 at 10:56 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 4:50 am)Losty Wrote: @EP, the reason this makes sense is because if "calling out" wasn't limited to the original post of a thread then it would mean replying to anyone's post or addressing anyone specifically (like I'm doing now) would be against the rules. Kinda hard to have a discussion forum if you're not allowed to talk to anyone

Yes, but what I'm having trouble with is, can you quote here something someone posted in another thread?

I don't see why not.

(February 3, 2016 at 2:02 pm)Losty Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 10:56 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Yes, but what I'm having trouble with is, can you quote here something someone posted in another thread?

I don't see why not.

It might spur some confusion lol. I know I am.

(February 3, 2016 at 1:21 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 12:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.

That argument could logically be used in opposition to the treatment/removal/killing of cancerous growths. Tumors are comprised entirely of cells coded by purely human DNA...

If simply being comprised of human DNA makes you a biological human being, why no funerals after hair-cuts, nail parings or amputations? These are all things comprised of human DNA. After all, we can (hypothetically) make clones from those material since they carry complete DNA.

By that logic, as Sam Harris points out in "Letter to a Christian Nation," (and I'm paraphrasing) every time you scratch your nose you're guilty of mass murder.

Cancer cells are cells from the person themselves. Made up of the same brand of DNA. Destroying a person's cancer cells won't kill that person any more than us shedding our skin cells/etc on a daily basis, does.  A fetus is not a person's cancerous cells. But rather, a separate entity (as evident by having its own unique set of human DNA).... a being of its own, made up of its own cells.

(February 3, 2016 at 2:02 pm)Losty Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 10:56 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Yes, but what I'm having trouble with is, can you quote here something someone posted in another thread?

I don't see why not.

As long as it's relevant to the discussion. Not like Huggies when he starts dragging in off topic crap from years dead threads just in order to "prove" a point.

(February 3, 2016 at 3:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 1:21 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: That argument could logically be used in opposition to the treatment/removal/killing of cancerous growths. Tumors are comprised entirely of cells coded by purely human DNA...

If simply being comprised of human DNA makes you a biological human being, why no funerals after hair-cuts, nail parings or amputations? These are all things comprised of human DNA. After all, we can (hypothetically) make clones from those material since they carry complete DNA.

By that logic, as Sam Harris points out in "Letter to a Christian Nation," (and I'm paraphrasing) every time you scratch your nose you're guilty of mass murder.

Cancer cells are cells from the person themselves. Made up of the same brand of DNA. Destroying a person's cancer cells won't kill that person any more than us shedding our skin cells/etc on a daily basis, does.  A fetus is not a person's cancerous cells. But rather, a separate entity (as evident by having its own unique set of human DNA).... a being of its own, made up of its own cells.

But, that's a different argument from the one I quoted. You claimed that being made of human DNA made something a human being.

By this new argument, you could claim that identical twins are not different people since they have the exact same DNA.