Great TED Talks vid: Human life from conception to birth

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 15, 2011

Biology, News, Video}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

"It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway, though, since you don’t even think that “human beings” have an inherent right to live." Show me one statement anywhere in this post from which that conclusion could reasonably be drawn. My whole point is that whether or not abortion is murder turns on whether or not what one kills in the process is regarded as a human being. The clear implication is that killing a human being is murder and thus unjustified.Bruce David_{November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

First 5 paragraphs: The paragraphs you say I was responding to were in 10.1. The paragraph I was actually responding to was 16.1 ("Yes, and BD obviously missed the point that when we witness something that is fighting to live, even an animal, we can discern WHAT it is that is doing the fighting."). In between the two were several thousand words of text, including one of Bornagain's interminable posts. I can see now that your 16.1 was referring back to 10.1, but I did not realize that at the time, and there is no mention of the word "fetus" in 16.1. But that is really irrelevant. I used the word "embryo", not the word "fetus". The word has a very specific scientific meaning, and I meant precisely to challenge you regarding whether you really thought you could distinguish between a human EMBRYO "fighting for its life" and a chimp EMBRYO "fighting for its life" merely by looking at the two of them. Your substituting the word "fetus" for my word "embryo" drastically changes my question to your benefit, and is unjustified regardless of what you thought I was responding to. An honest answer on your part would have been to point out that my question was non-responsive, since you were talking about a fetus and I used the term "embryo". "The natural moral law constitutes an objective standard" In 26.1, in response to your "The natural right to live is based on objective facts" (in 26) I wrote the following: "Anyone who has studied philosophy knows that you cannot derive ethical principles from empirical fact. If you disagree with that assertion, show me the derivation." You have ignored that challenge and instead changed your assertion from "based on objective fact" to "is an objective standard". An objective standard? Really? An ethical principle is an OBJECTIVE standard? Please show me your warrant for such a remarkable assertion.Bruce David_{November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

--"I’m getting really, really tired of your misrepresentations of my thinking. Your tactics are underhanded and sleazy, Stephen, and most assuredly NOT the way someone who prides himself in making reasoned statements ought to be comporting himself." It is hard to tell whether you are being disingenuous are whether you are simply clueless about how this whole mess got started. My original statement was expressed in exactly these words: "You seem to have missed all the action. The fact of the fetus’”humanity” has long been settled. In fact, we can look inside a mother’s womb via magnetic resource imaging and see the human unborn baby sucking it’s thumb. As far as I know, no one has even participated in this exercise and went away thinking that they had just witnessed an underdeveloped giraffe mimicking the behavior of a human. With the same technology, by the way, we can also witness that same human baby fighting for its life against almost impossible odds. When you are only two or three inches long and weigh only a couple of pounds, it isn’t easy to defend yourself against a 175 pound abortionist armed with knives and chemicals. As you might imagine, the action is brutal with all the writing, twisting, and silent screaming, but the little guy doesn’t give up easily, fighting long, hard, and heroically. You can almost sense him saying, “just give me a few more years and a few more pounds and I will take you on.” But, alas, that will not happen in this life." That was the statement you were responding to--the same one which prompted you to say, "Oh really?", even as you quietly injected your own word "embyo" into the discussion as if I had used it, avoiding my clear use of the words "fetus" and "baby" and, one gathers, purposely creating confusion, changing the subject, and hoping that no one would notice. Moving ahead: ---"As for Bornagain’s Hitler analogy, EVERY decision that it is ok to terminate a life, human or otherwise, is a subjective decision. The decision to execute a convicted murderer is a subjective decision, as is the decision to go to war, as is the decision to kill an animal for food, as is the decision to assist a terminally ill person’s suicide. Each of us will agree or disagree with each of these decisions on the basis of his or her own ethical principles. Obviously, I don’t agree with Hitler’s decision regarding the Jews. That disagreement, however, is irrelevant to whether or not a human zygote is a human being." More nonsense. The issue is not whether a "decision" is subjective but rather whether the criteria used for making that decision are objective or subjective. The natural moral law constitutes an objective standard and so does the scientific evidence that a fetus is human. Dismissing all that, you obviously don't care to grant the fetus a right to live, so you downgrade its relative status by introducing the word "human being" as if a mere human doesn't deserve to live--as if your definition of a human being could be meaningful to anyone but you. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway, though, since you don't even think that "human beings" have an inherent right to live. For that reason, it is not at all "obvious" that you would disagree with Hitler's decision regarding the Jews because his standard for sayihng that they have no inherent right to live is exactly the same as your standard for saying that a fetus has no inherent right to live. If you do disagree with Hitler's decision, it certainly cannot be because you challenge his decision-making standard, which is also your decision-making standard of personal preferences. In both cases, those humans that are "perceived" to be first class humans are spared while those who are perceived to be second class humans are killed.StephenB_{November 20, 2011
November
11
Nov
20
20
2011
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Once again, you distort my meaning. This time by substituting the word "fetus" for my word, "embryo". "Embryo" is used to connote the first 8 weeks of development; "fetus" is used for the period of gestation after that. My question merely reflected my conviction that during the first 8 weeks of gestation, no one untrained in primate embryology would be able to differentiate between a human embryo and a chimp embryo by physical appearance alone. I'm getting really, really tired of your misrepresentations of my thinking. Your tactics are underhanded and sleazy, Stephen, and most assuredly NOT the way someone who prides himself in making reasoned statements ought to be comporting himself.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

2nd paragraph: My one and only utterance on the subject of whether or not one could distinguish a human embryo from a chimp embryo was three sentences that formed a question: “Oh, really? So you’re saying that you can distinguish between, say a human embryo and a chimp embryo just by looking. Remarkable!” That's it. That's all I said. I did not indicate what point in the development I was referring to, but I used the term "embryo" and NOT the term, "fetus", and I certainly never said that a fetus that was fighting for its life could not be distinguished from a chimp. You have made that all up. So I repeat, you consistently misrepresent my statements. For someone who wants to be regarded by others as a person who "make[s] reasoned statements", you are remarkably careless with the facts. 4th paragraph: So, a five month old fetus has eyes and vocal chords. So what? It doesn't follow by any rule of logic or inference that therefore the fetus is a human being. That, I repeat (and repeat, and repeat...) is a matter of DEFINITION. You DEFINE a human being as a fertilized human egg. I DEFINE a human being as a human body conjoined with a soul. Another person would DEFINE a human being as a human body that is capable of surviving outside of the womb. Your definition is just as arbitrary as any of the others. 5th paragraph: The "objective facts" are that a fertilized human egg is a single cell with the full complement of human DNA, which if allowed to remain in the womb and all goes well in nine months be born as a human infant. These facts are in the realm of science. "Natural right" on the other hand, is a concept from the realm of ethics. Anyone who has studied philosophy knows that you cannot derive ethical principles from empirical fact. If you disagree with that assertion, show me the derivation. As for Bornagain's Hitler analogy, EVERY decision that it is ok to terminate a life, human or otherwise, is a subjective decision. The decision to execute a convicted murderer is a subjective decision, as is the decision to go to war, as is the decision to kill an animal for food, as is the decision to assist a terminally ill person's suicide. Each of us will agree or disagree with each of these decisions on the basis of his or her own ethical principles. Obviously, I don't agree with Hitler's decision regarding the Jews. That disagreement, however, is irrelevant to whether or not a human zygote is a human being.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

---"Now, as for your question, of course there will come a point in the development of a human fetus when it is recognizable as a human body and not the body some other animal." So, you now acknowledge that one can distinguish a human fetus from that of a chimp? ---"What’s your point?" Are you kidding. Here is your earlier quote: “Oh, really? So you’re saying that you can distinguish between, say a human embryo and a chimp embryo just by looking. Remarkable!”StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

__Bruce: ”Thank you for acknowledging that I am right in this case. However, this is just one example of the carelessness with which you mis-characterize my arguments and which is absolutely rampant throughout this discussion.” Well, no, I have not mischaracterized your position. You stated that one cannot distinguish a fetus from a chimp in the early stages of development. You are, in fact, wrong about that. At six weeks, the fetus is about one and a half inches long and its features can be clearly seen. At the end of the second month, arms, legs, feet, and fingers are fully developed. Fingernails are present and facial features can be discerned. Yet you argued that a fetus that could be seen fighting for its life, something that often occurs much later in the process, could not be distinguished from a chimp. Are you going to be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about that? ---According to my philosophy, “it will be a human being if and only if at that point in time the brain is sufficiently developed and a soul has merged with it. There are many, many phenomena whose essential nature cannot be determined solely from their visual appearance.” Again, this is pure speculation and guesswork. You have no idea at which point the soul merges with the body. You have no idea about whether a developed brain is required for a soul. However, there is no speculating about the scientific fact that after five months the fetus (let’s call it a baby, that’s what it is) can see and has vocal chords sufficient that it could scream if it were out in the open. That’s objective reality, and yes, it is a scientific fact based on observation and data, but according to your subjective reality, the fetus that has reached that stage is not yet a “human being.” This brings us to the most important part of the discussion, which you continue to avoid. The natural right to live is based on objective facts, not your subjective feelings. That is what Bornagain 77 meant when he pointed out that subjective criteria for determining who deserves to live is precisely the same standard the Hitler used. TO HIM, Jews did not deserve to live because, BY HIS SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS, they were not sufficiently human to merit consideration. Objectively, they were humans, but subjectively he decided that they just did not meet his criteria. Your standards are similar. By your subjective standards, anyone who doesn't meet your definition of a "human being," has no moral right to live.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

"you just arrived at the conclusion that my world view is false." No, I concluded that one part of your epistemology is false, not your entire world view. This is based partly on reason and partly on the experience of studying philosophy and mathematics in college and after. Be careful--notice that I say reason BY ITSELF is incapable of arriving at truth. Reason actually is an indispensable component of the tools one needs to arrive at truth. However, without experience and natural knowing it is impotent.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

"...one must apply the rules of reason to differentiate between truth and error." This is your mistake. The "rules of reason" will only tell you whether a given proposition or set of propositions is internally consistent, or whether a proposition follows from one or more other propositions. Other methods of differentiating between truth and error are 1) comparing a belief to actual experience for consistency. For example, if one has a belief that the sun rises in the west, one day's experience will demonstrate the error. 2) comparing it to one's natural knowing. For example, natural knowing reveals that there is only the eternal Now; the past and future do not exist in actuality. This is not a result of reasoning. It is a kind of knowing that transcends reason altogether.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Thank you for acknowledging that I am right in this case. However, this is just one example of the carelessness with which you mis-characterize my arguments and which is absolutely rampant throughout this discussion. If you want onlookers to take you seriously, then I highly recommend that you address what I actually say, not some made up parody of my words. Now, as for your question, of course there will come a point in the development of a human fetus when it is recognizable as a human body and not the body some other animal. What's your point? Because it looks human, it is therefore a human being? We've been through this same territory many times already: according to my philosophy, it will be a human being if and only if at that point in time the brain is sufficiently developed and a soul has merged with it. There are many, many phenomena whose essential nature cannot be determined solely from their visual appearance. If you actually understood my position, you should have been able to predict my answer. It follows easily from what I have already said. The fact that you even asked the question is more evidence that you are unable (or unwilling) to grasp my meaning.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "No, I am trying to get you to understand that the 'humanity' of the fetus is an objective fact." The truth of this statement depends entirely on what you mean by the term, "humanity". That is why I say that it is ambiguous and your use of it obscures the distinctions. If by "humanity" you mean "having human characteristics (such as human DNA) or having been derived from a human being or human body (such as a human heart or a human blood cell)", then the better term to use is simply "human". I agree that a fetus is human in that sense. On the other hand, if by "humanity" you mean "having the quality of being a human being", then no, you are wrong. The "human beingness" of a fetus is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of definition. "The term 'human being' is meaningless and arbitrary in that context because it can mean anything you or anyone else wants it to mean." No, the term "human being" is a common noun phrase, understood by everyone. I have not changed its meaning one iota. I have merely raised the question, "To what precisely, does the term apply?" You have your answer; I have mine; someone else will have another. But the meaning of the term remains the same.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

that should read, you can only say that [he] sees the world differently than you do.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

In order to be well educated, a person must know the differnece between objective facts and subjective preferences. Equally important, one must apply the rules of reason to differentiate between truth and error. Since you accept no rational standard for making that differentiation, you can hardly say that someone else is in error. You can only say that they see the world differently than you do. You don't really believe what you are saying anyway, because you just arrived at the conclusion that my world view is false. To be consistent, you should have said that your philosophy is true for you, that my philosophy is true for me, and that there are really no rational standards for determining the validity of my position, just as, for you, there are no rational standards for determining who deserves to live and who does not.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Your contention has been from the start that "a human" begins at the moment of conception. That is a fertilized egg, a single cell, not a fetus. It's sexual identity resides in its chromosomes, period. You claim that his makes it "a human". I point out the reductio ad absurdum of your argument, and you ignore it, resorting only to restating your claim that something being "human" ipso facto makes it "a human", or a human being. You use the word "humanity", which is ambiguous and clouds the issue. I agree that a fertilized human egg is "human". I disagree that a fertilized egg is "a human" if by that you mean a human being. And yes, whether or not something is a human being IS subjective. That's my whole point. Each of us must make that determination for ourselves, based on our own philosophical, spiritual, and religious understanding.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

You said that, in the context of observing an infant fighting for its life, we cannot know if we are looking at a human or a chimp. You did NOT say, I agree, that we cannot discern its humanity when we observe it sucking its thumb, though the point of both examples was obviously the same. I gather that you ignored the first example for strategic reasons. Still, in the spirit of fair play, I will give you a chance to show that I didn't give you a fair hearing. So go ahead and acknowledge that we can know that a fetus sucking its thumb is really a human and could not be a chimp. Of course, you will not and you are just playing games.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

---"Your use of the word “humanity” in the clause, “it’s humanity has been confirmed” is in my view a deliberate attempt to obscure the clear distinction I have made between a human body and a human being." No, I am trying to get you to understand that the "humanity" of the fetus is an objective fact and is the only thing that matters in terms of its inherent right to life. The term "human being" is meaningless and arbitrary in that context because it can mean anything you or anyone else wants it to mean. In your judgment, only a human "being,"--meaning, only a human who has reached a stage in its developmental process that satisfies your subjective criteria for worthiness--is entitled to protection. The natural right to live is based on objective facts, not your subjective feelings. That is what Bornagain 77 meant when he pointed out that subjective criteria for determining who deserves to live is precisely the same standard the Hitler used. TO HIM, Jews did not deserve to live because, BY HIS SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS, they were not sufficiently human. Objectively, they were humans, and, on that bases, they are entitled to live.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

More madness. Science has determined the sexual identity of the fetus prior to implantation, which means that, prior to implantation, it is a human fetus. It does not, as you would have it, BECOME a human, it already is a human. This is a fact that you choose to avoid, obviously at all costs. It doesn't matter whether or not you feel that a human is also a human "being" because the humanity pf the fetus is an objective fact while your definition of "being" is subjective. "Being is just a word that you arbitrarily add on in order to separate humans into those who you feel deserve to live and those you feel do not deserve to live.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Typo: insert the word, "be" between "not" and "a" at the end of my second sentence in the first paragraph.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Also, if you have been paying any attention at all to what I have written, you will be aware that for me a human body is not a human being unless there is a soul conjoined to it. Thus, in my philosophical system a human fetus which has developed sexual organs but which has not yet merged with a soul could be characterized as a human body, but it would not a human being. There is nothing irrational or contradictory about this position. Your use of the word "humanity" in the clause, "it’s humanity has been confirmed" is in my view a deliberate attempt to obscure the clear distinction I have made between a human body and a human being. This is typical of your debate tactics.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Here's how I actually see you, Stephen. I think you are so committed to your belief that you can arrive at truth through reason, and that that truth is the Christian religion (as you understand it to be, of course), that when you run into someone like me who is relatively smart, educated in philosophical and mathematical reasoning, and thoughtful, but who has arrived at a different philosophical and spiritual stance, this intellectual commitment, this need to be right about the power of "reason" causes you to stop thinking clearly and/or compromise your integrity. So you end up with the kind of foolishness in which you have caught yourself up from #21 forward. Your own words are a clear demonstration of the fact, which I have attempted to point out to you several times in the past, that reason BY ITSELF is powerless to arrive at truth.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

YOU are distorting my meaning. Look carefully at the sequence 16.1, 16.1.1, and 16.1.1.1. In the first, you say simply that you can tell what something is by looking at it, to which I respond in 16.1.1 with the question, "Oh, really? So you’re saying that you can distinguish between, say a human embryo and a chimp embryo just by looking. Remarkable!" Then in 16.1.1.1, AFTER I have made that comment, you add the context that you meant you were speaking of looking inside a woman's womb at a "baby" (NOT an embryo) via "modern technology" (as opposed to, say, looking at a couple of embryos on a slide under a microscope). So your statement above, "I [StephenB] said that, through technology, we can look inside a woman’s womb and see her baby sucking its thumb, or, in some cases, fighting for its life. You [Bruce] said that I cannot, from a scientific perspective, be sure that we are witnessing the activities of a human at all, as if, perhaps we were looking at, what, a giraffe?" is false. In fact, I made no response at all to your 16.1.1.1. Your comment 21 is nothing more than a list of straw man distortions of my words with the intent of making me look "irrational". The onlookers you hope to convince of my irrationality are smarter than to be taken in by such shabby rhetorical tactics.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Every single cell in my body has as much sexual identity as a fertilized human egg, namely either a pair of X chromosomes or an X and Y chromosome. By your reasoning, every cell in every human body is a human being. And you call ME irrational!Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

In #21, you claim I said, "a person can be human and yet not be a ‘being,’." Find me the quote anywhere in this thread or admit you are lying. In this comment, you appear to be saying that in denying that an entity is a human being I have denied that it has being at all. I assumed until now that you were deliberately distorting my words. Now I'm inclined to think you're simply not very smart.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

---"The only possible conclusion anyone who isn’t already in your camp can draw upon reading my actual words and then comparing them to your list of straw men above is that either you haven’t understood anything I have said or that you have deliberately distorted my meaning." I said that, through technology, we can look inside a woman's womb and see her baby sucking its thumb, or, in some cases, fighting for its life. You said that I cannot, from a scientific perspective, be sure that we are witnessing the activities of a human at all, as if, perhaps we were looking at, what, a giraffe? No one is distorting your meaning. No one is distorting your meaning.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

---"I never said that. In fact, I never used the word “person” at all. What I did say was that although a FERTILIZED EGG is clearly human, it is not, in my philosophy, a human BEING, and I gave my reasons." Yes, you did say that, and it was clearly an irrational response. To be (or to have being) is to exist. One cannot be human and not exist at the same time. I want readers to get a good grasp of this nonsense so that they will avoid it.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

If a fetus' sexual identity has been identified, it's humanity has been confirmed. Everybody gets that but you. It is not possible to be a male or female without being a member of a species, in this case human. There is no such thing as a male or female nothing. Your ideology prevents you from grasping that, which means that your reason has been compromised.StephenB_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

I'll give you one example of what I mean when I say your list is composed of straw men. The first item on your list is, "It wasn’t I who said that a person can be human and yet not be a 'being,' it was you;" I never said that. In fact, I never used the word "person" at all. What I did say was that although a FERTILIZED EGG is clearly human, it is not, in my philosophy, a human BEING, and I gave my reasons. That is an entirely different statement. The only way you could get your characterization from my words is by begging the question and assuming that a fertilized egg is a person. But even then, my assertion could not be characterized as saying that a person could be human and not be a "being", unless you make the further (clearly false) assumption that denying that an entity is a human being is equivalent to denying that it is a being. There are only two possible explanations for why you would assert that I would make such an absurd statement. Either you have completely misunderstood my meaning, or you have deliberately misstated my position in order to be able to claim that my words are "irrational responses". So, on the evidence of the above statement which you attribute to me, there are two possibilities: either you are extraordinarily careless in your thinking, or you are intellectually dishonest. Take your pick. In either case, however, you have by your own words quite destroyed your claim that you "simply make reasoned statements". You conclude with, "On the other hand, there may be some out there who are tempted to flirt with new-age mysticism and may not be aware of its adverse effects on reasoning capacity." If you think they are going to be convinced of this by what you have written in #21, all you have accomplished is to insult their intelligence.Bruce David_{November 19, 2011
November
11
Nov
19
19
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

You really aren't helping your cause, you know, Stephen. The only possible conclusion anyone who isn't already in your camp can draw upon reading my actual words and then comparing them to your list of straw men above is that either you haven't understood anything I have said or that you have deliberately distorted my meaning. You two really are like the worst of the Darwinists. When you realize that you have no real counter to my reasoning, you resort to the same underhanded rhetorical tactics that they do--straw man attacks, ad hominem attacks, ridicule, and appeals to authority. You have both resorted to one or more of these techniques at various points in this thread, as you have in the other debates we have had. You know, the people you want to convince who might be reading this thread aren't stupid. They CAN see through your nonsense. "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- PogoBruce David_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

--Bruce: "You and StephenB, on the other hand, seem bent on forcing me, by dint of your “superior” reasoning ability, to accept your version of reality. That, it should be apparent by now, is a fool’s errand." On the contrary. I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. My objective is to simply make reasoned statements and allow onlookers to observe your irrational responses. It wasn't I who said that a person can be human and yet not be a "being," it was you; it wasn't I who finally confessed that you cannot be persuaded by evidence or reasoned arguments, it was you; it wasn't I who suggested that a being can have sexual identity without being a member of a species, it was you; it wasn't I who didn't think that a baby sucking its thumb is human, it was you; it wasnt I who said that he doesn't support abortion and then defended it without qualification, it was you. I am not trying to rescue you from your own folly because, alas, I fear it may be too late for you. On the other hand, there may be some out there who are tempted to flirt with new-age mysticism and may not be aware of its adverse effects on reasoning capacity.StephenB_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Ok, Bornagain, I watched the annoying video by Frank Turek, so let me clarify: I agree that some beliefs, like whether there is a God, are either true or not. If God exists, it makes no difference whether you believe it or not, it's still true. Other beliefs, however, are personal. They are true only for those who hold them. The definition of what constitutes a human being is one of those. So for me, but not for you, a human being, is a human body conjoined with a soul. For you, but not for me, a human being is a fertilized human egg and whatever it develops into. These definitions are personal and relative, not absolute. But I have another meaning in mind when I say "true for me, but not for you", and that is that while I believe that my view of the nature of reality is true, I do not demand that you agree with me. I am willing to allow you to hold whatever beliefs about the nature of reality you come to as a result of your own search for truth. I honor that you have done the best you can to ascertain truth for yourself and that the search for truth is, for us all, an ongoing process. You and StephenB, on the other hand, seem bent on forcing me, by dint of your "superior" reasoning ability, to accept your version of reality. That, it should be apparent by now, is a fool's errand.Bruce David_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply