(August 29, 2015 at 11:19 pm)Ronkonkoma Wrote: No reason to get mad. I might be just a dumb-ass country doc, who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple on his ass, but for the sake of arguing about the soul it matters little if I say ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid.
No, it does, because they are two different kinds of nucleic acid that have very different functions. It's like saying that the internal intercostal muscles and the external intercostal muscles are the same thing. They aren't, and it's really imprecise and a sign of ignorance on the subject to say they are.
(August 29, 2015 at 11:19 pm)Ronkonkoma Wrote: My point is, there are implications on our understanding of the soul. Implications, that determine a civil and just society, just as the ancient Greek philosophers are the rogenitors of our modern democracy and western set of values.
Sure we can respect human life as long as it is convenient for us to do that, and as long as that seems like the nice thing to do... But as soon as becomes inconvenient?
What stops us from interpreting life to begin as soon as baby is born, versus at the moment of conception?
Does the mere presence of blastocysts and DNA constitute personhood?
Are human zygotes persons???
At what point do they become persons, and who is the one to define that???
Are drug companies that produce the morning after pill competent to re-define the start of human life, so that technically their pills do not cause abortion?
We enter a lot of muddy and dangerous ground when we ignore the soul, the basis of human identity and dignity.
This is an argument from consequences.
Apart from that, how would you test your hypothesis that there *is* a soul, let alone that a zygote or a blastocyst have one? I, for one, don't think that they are a human being yet, because, well, they are lumps of cells and lack the structures that make a human (or any animal for that matters) conscious and aware of its surroundings.
That does not mean that everyone should have abortions, or that I don't value the life of a zygote or a blastocyst, just that they are not conscious, pain feeling human beings. And seeing as the waters get muddy, it's up to the individual's conscience to decide whether taking the pill or going to the abortion clinic are moral decisions. If I were a woman, I don't think I'd do it except in the most horrible of cases (eg. Getting pregnant after being raped), and I would much rather give the baby up for adoption if I knew that I would not be able to raise him/her in a decent way. But different people think differently, so in cases like this, there has to be freedom of choice for each individual.
The point is, the consequences don't matter. The consequences of the inexistence of the soul don't determine its existence. Try again.
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
