Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ECrownofFire]

they support laws banning abortion because they consider it murder).

[...]
Also, can you prove that it isn't?

Prove that abortion isn't murder? That depends on where you draw the line at what is considered a human life with a right to, well, not be destroyed. From a secular point of view, it's pretty clear that a fertilized egg cell, blastocyst, or tiny embryo has no real qualities that should cause it to be considered a "human being" any more than a swab of your own cheek cells or a culture of cancer cells should be. On the other end of the spectrum, a viable human fetus of normal development shouldn't be treated much differently on either side of the birth canal (unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as the mother's safety being at risk if it's brought to term). The real question is where you draw the line in the middle.

That depends on how secular you wanna get. From an extreme reductionist point of view there is little difference between a human embryo, a human fetus and a human adult (and for that matter, there also isn't much appreciable difference between a human being and any other animal)

The key here is sapience and sentience. Questions of whether a fetus thinks on a "higher level" (that's sapience). Sapience is the proper term, because even a dog (or something similar) possibly has feelings (which is technically sentience).

[Criptfeind]

But anybody rational enough realizes that we determine status as people by sentience, not genetics.

Hah hah hah so naive.

The key here is sapience and sentience. Questions of whether a fetus thinks on a "higher level" (that's sapience). Sapience is the proper term, because even a dog (or something similar) possibly has feelings (which is technically sentience).

That, of course, is not the only issue. There is also the fact that a dog will never ever achieve sapience, whereas a embryo, if let to live, will.

Of course that opens up a bunch of stuff cause it only pushes the line back.

[Glowcat]

But anybody rational enough realizes that we determine status as people by sentience, not genetics.

Hah hah hah so naive.

Hmm... I probably could have worded that better.

[G-Flex]

That depends on how secular you wanna get. From an extreme reductionist point of view there is little difference between a human embryo, a human fetus and a human adult (and for that matter, there also isn't much appreciable difference between a human being and any other animal)

The difference is exactly the difference that matters: The ability to feel pain and suffer as a human, and think as a human. Granted, you could argue that infants are almost borderline when it comes to things like that, but we're not talking about infants here.

I have no idea why you think there's "little difference" between an embryo and a fully-functioning human. An embryo does not think, have emotions, feel pain, or conceive of its own situation in any way. It does not even have a functioning nervous system. Those are the differences that matter.

[Bohandas]

That depends on how secular you wanna get. From an extreme reductionist point of view there is little difference between a human embryo, a human fetus and a human adult (and for that matter, there also isn't much appreciable difference between a human being and any other animal)

The difference is exactly the difference that matters: The ability to feel pain and suffer as a human, and think as a human. Granted, you could argue that infants are almost borderline when it comes to things like that, but we're not talking about infants here.

I have no idea why you think there's "little difference" between an embryo and a fully-functioning human. An embryo does not think, have emotions, feel pain, or conceive of its own situation in any way. It does not even have a functioning nervous system. Those are the differences that matter.

And I can respond by going even more secular skeptical. Can you empirically prove that the people around you have actual emotions, rather than merely the appearance of emotions?

[Hiiri]

Neuroscience.

I can't, but people with the gear and education can.

Edit: Just for the hell of it.. can you empirically prove that they're actual people? What if they're just an illusion? Or maybe you're actually lying in hospital in a coma, and they're all just figments of your imagination. Can you prove me they're really really real?

[G-Flex]

That depends on how secular you wanna get. From an extreme reductionist point of view there is little difference between a human embryo, a human fetus and a human adult (and for that matter, there also isn't much appreciable difference between a human being and any other animal)

The difference is exactly the difference that matters: The ability to feel pain and suffer as a human, and think as a human. Granted, you could argue that infants are almost borderline when it comes to things like that, but we're not talking about infants here.

I have no idea why you think there's "little difference" between an embryo and a fully-functioning human. An embryo does not think, have emotions, feel pain, or conceive of its own situation in any way. It does not even have a functioning nervous system. Those are the differences that matter.

And I can respond by going even more secular. Can you empirically prove that the people around you have actual emotions, rather than merely the appearance of emotions?

• I don't think you actually know what "secular" means. This has nothing to do with getting "more secular".
• We can prove it beyond any doubt than anyone could consider reasonable. We know enough neurochemistry to know that people's brains operate basically the same. Also, for all behavioral intents and purposes, if the people around me respond as if they had emotions, what is the difference between that and them actually having them? The only way that would possibly matter would be if they express emotions they aren't actually feeling, which would involve faking self-awareness to the point where they would have to self-analyze enough to, well... be self-aware! Sure, you could envision some weirdo hypothetical scenario where their brains act totally differently to give such an illusion, despite having perfectly normal brain chemistry, but on to the last point:
• Who in God's name (ha ha ha) says that things have to be proven absolutely? You can't even prove absolutely that I'm not some kind of talking sock. Completely baseless hypotheticals that we consider despite a total lack of evidence and plenty of evidence to the contrary does not constitute "being secular"; if anything, it's a mainstay of plenty of religious faith. You're throwing complete non sequiturs at me and I can't even tell why.

[AtomicSneakers]

I'm moving to France where no one argues about religion because they've managed to successfully and entirely implement disestablishment. Hooray for secularism.

[lemon10]

Also, can you prove that it isn't?

No, I can't. I'm not arguing that it isn't murder (although I don't think it is), simply that's why (the vast majority of) Christians are against abortions.

That may be what you and the people you know believe, but that isn't representative of the christian church as a whole even today (and definitely not the church in the past), and some of the things are flat out wrong (eg. in many parts of the world women/gays can't be priests, they support laws banning abortion because they consider it murder).

The Fuck?
Sorry, Your not a Religious Stereotype, ergo your example is invalid?

No, I am simply saying that his beliefs aren't representative of Christianity as a whole (as much as can be said about such a large group).

they support laws banning abortion because they consider it murder).

You have misleadingly combined a non-theological issue with a theological one. It would be better stated as "They think abortion is murder. They support laws opposing abortion because (however hypocritical they may otherwise be on this subject) their religion says that murder is wrong."

How about this: The majority of organized christian religion (Catholic, Eastern orthodox, Oriential orthodox) condemn abortion as a sin (in all circumstances), and supports laws that make it illegal.

[Leafsnail]

Also, can you prove that it isn't?

I'd like to motion for a ban on the use of this phrase in this thread.  It's clearly meaningless unless you're arguing for some sort of solipsism.

And I can respond by going even more secular. Can you empirically prove that the people around you have actual emotions, rather than merely the appearance of emotions?

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

Your use of the word... doesn't seem to make sense.  What you're doing could be more accurately described by "If I start to strawman your position even more...".

[Bohandas]

And I can respond by going even more secular. Can you empirically prove that the people around you have actual emotions, rather than merely the appearance of emotions?

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

Your use of the word... doesn't seem to make sense.  What you're doing could be more accurately described by "If I start to strawman your position even more...".

Granted. How about "skeptical" then?

[counting]

Also, can you prove that it isn't?

I'd like to motion for a ban on the use of this phrase in this thread.  It's clearly meaningless unless you're arguing for some sort of solipsism.

"YOU CAN NOT prove THIS STATEMENT right  "

I believe we have moved far from the topic of religion already.

[Supercharazad]

Something I'd like to point out to everyone:


You can prove nothing but your own existence. Everything else could be a hallucination.

[Realmfighter]

Something else,

How would that Change anything?

[Bauglir]

Something else,

How would that Change anything?

This may be the most insightful post in recent memory in this thread.