Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Barbarians Inside the Gate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Everyone who believes the barbarians among us have declared total war on Western Civilization raise your hand.

Arm of Baby Killed by Planned Parenthood

The differences between this and Auschwitz:

1.  The victims are more defenseless.

2.  The victims are more innocent.

3.  The victims are smaller.

4.  The execution chambers are more sanitary.

Ideas have consequences.

Comments
Sorry I'm late getting back. Dell and Windows put up a bigger fight than I'd counted on. Also, I read your last reply and reevaluated your knowledge. I now doubt if I can convince you of anything. 1: information is material. It is always associated with matter. If you disagree, please give even one example of information that's doesn't come with matter. Remember that energy, such as electromagnetic waves, is a form of matter. In the case of DNA, the order of the base pairs encodes the information. Change the order and you change the information. Tell Dr. Meyer that information on a hard drive is encoded in magnetic polarities - also material. DNA is also a constituent of each of the cells that makes up your flesh. Ditto for bones, blood and all the other things you find in flesh. 2: I wasn't aware that you'd refuted any of my claims. Are you claiming that a material mind can't apprehend the concept of a triangle? If you're talking about Plato and his forms, they appear not to exist. 3: I'm afraid that any attempt I made to explain how a mind works (and how one forms) would be lost on any one who believes DNA is magic. Let's see if you can show me some non-material information first. 4: You said that the anti abortion side had lots of new arguments. Could you favor us with one or two of them please? Frankly, I haven't seen a trace of one. I do notice a constant increase of slander and an escalation of your argument. Did you notice your escalation in your last reply? "... you will use any excuse to defend the killing of innocent, unborn children." That's a two-fer. Increasing the slagging of your opponents and escalating abortion to the killing of children, who everybody agrees have minds. Are these examples of the "new" arguments the anti-abortion side is coming up with?MatSpirit
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
MatSpirit
Did you just forget that every cell in your flesh contains DNA or is this news to you?
The information in the cell is not flesh nor is not made of matter. Therefore, the baby is not all flesh. Therefore, the argument that we can kill be baby because it is all flesh fails. Also, the baby has a soul that animates the body. There is no good reason to believe that the baby is all flesh.
I realize that the only way I can convince you that the mind is material is if you first realize you’re never going to heaven and I’m not sure if any thing I say can do that.
The best way to convince me that the mind is material is to address my refutation of that same claim. The mind as changing matter cannot produce, or be synonymous with, a fixed and unchanging concept, such as a triangle.
I’ll explain what I can of how the mind works.
I will be happy to correct your perceptions on that matter when you present them. Meanwhile, I am persuaded that you will use any excuse to defend the killing of innocent, unborn children. First, you say that unborn children who are not perfect have no right to live. Then, you say that unborn children who do not have minds do not deserve to live. Then, you imply that late term fetuses who are sliced up and sold like meat do not deserve to live.StephenB
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
I agree it's getting too wordy. Especially when I'm writing on a tablet and I've just lost a long reply with lots of examples somehow. Meanwhile I notice, "First, you say that the fetus is nothing but flesh and in the very next paragraph, your provide your account about how the non-fleshy DNA molecule operates." and I wonder if we're playing the same game. Did you just forget that every cell in your flesh contains DNA or is this news to you? I also notice, "In fact, we couldn’t go to heaven if our minds were as mortal as our body. Our minds cannot die precisely because they are not made of matter. Only matter can disintegrate and die," and I realize that the only way I can convince you that the mind is material is if you first realize you're never going to heaven and I'm not sure if any thing I say can do that. However, I just bought a new laptop and if I can get it going and get Windows 10 loaded on it, I can retype the message I lost in minutes. Otherwise, see you tomorrow night and I'll explain what I can of how the mind works.MatSpirit
August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
MatSpirit This conversation is getting too wordy. I will focus on the main points:
I don’t think there’s any serious doubt except in some religious and philosophical circles that everything listed above is the product of the brain or embedded in it.
It appears that you have been reading only one side of the argument. The mind cannot be the product of the brain. If it were, it would also be matter in motion. Changing matter cannot produce, or be synonymous with, unchanging principles and concepts. It is a logical impossibility.
If there’s no mind in a fetus then there are no thoughts, will, memories or anything else present and the fetus is spiritless flesh.
The soul is the llfe principle of the body. There can be no life without it. If, therefore, the baby is alive, it automatically has a soul. If you have a better explanation for the life principle, please provide it.
That possibility justifiably scares abortion opponents and you can actually watch them unconsciously twist and turn to avoid confronting it. And it should scare them because most of the anti-abortion movement is religious and if the mind is material then how … ? Fill in your own list here, starting with, “How do we go to heaven if our minds are as mortal as our body?”
It isn't the anti-abortionist movement that is short on arguments, it is the pro-abortion side. In fact, the mind cannot be made of matter as previously indicated. IF you have a counter argument, let's focus on that, since everything else you write depends on that erroneous assumption. In fact, we couldn't go to heaven if our minds were as mortal as our body. Our minds cannot die precisely because they are not made of matter. Only matter can disintegrate and die.
There’s one of the persistent problems for the anti-abortion side: the Fallacy of Equivocation. “Human” can mean “human being”, an animal with a mind or it can just mean of or pertaining to a human like human flesh.
There is no equivocating at all and you are not really advancing a rational argument. Everyone knows the difference between a human being and an animal.
We concede the existence of human flesh in a human fetus.
A fetus is obviously more than human flesh, so that argument fails as well.
DNA is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a human being. It directs the construction and some of the operation of the human body and brain, but thinking is a dynamic process performed by the brain. DNA is much too slow to have any part in the process.
Please stop contradicting your self. First, you say that the fetus is nothing but flesh and in the very next paragraph, your provide your account about how the non-fleshy DNA molecule operates. In fact, the information contained therein is, itself, not made of matter--or flesh!
You can extract DNA from someone who’s clinically dead and starting to rot. Identical twins have identical DNA but they’re two separate persons. But if an intact brain isn’t producing a mind then flesh is all you have.
Brains do not produce minds. I gather that you are a metaphysical materialist. That philosophy cannot survive scrutiny.StephenB
August 23, 2015
August
08
Aug
23
23
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
I think an immaterial soul that's present from conception is an interesting idea. I don't think its correct, but if you have any evidence to support that idea, I'd like to read it. As far as abortion goes, half or more of all conceptions self abort and are never born. I would assume that if there is a God and He is even a little merciful then He has made provisions for those immaterial souls. Perhaps they're recycled into the next conception or something. I leave it in God's capable hands. What is a mind? Well, Wikipedia says "A mind is the set of cognitive faculties that enables  consciousness,  perception, thinking, judgement, and memory — a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms." It's all of your thoughts, memories, knowledge, likes, dislikes - everything mental about you. I don't think there's any serious doubt except in some religious and philosophical circles that everything listed above is the product of the brain or embedded in it. If the mind is like that, we don't use our minds to think. Instead, our thoughts, will, memory and everything else mental ARE our mind. That's why the absence or presence of a mind is so important in the abortion debate. If there's no mind in a fetus then there are no thoughts, will, memories or anything else present and the fetus is spiritless flesh. That possibility justifiably scares abortion opponents and you can actually watch them unconsciously twist and turn to avoid confronting it. And it should scare them because most of the anti-abortion movement is religious and if the mind is material then how ... ? Fill in your own list here, starting with, "How do we go to heaven if our minds are as mortal as our body?" SB: "The presence of DNA, on the other hand, is not arbitrary nor is it conjecture. We can determine that the fetus is human based on the facts of science. It is, in part, on that basis, that most of us believe the fetus deserves to live. By virtue of being a member of the human family, the fetus will someday have a mind if it doesn’t have one already. It should not be penalized for the dubious crime of not being fully developed." There's one of the persistent problems for the anti-abortion side: the Fallacy of Equivocation. "Human" can mean "human being", an animal with a mind or it can just mean of or pertaining to a human like human flesh. We concede the existence of human flesh in a human fetus. But we deny the existence of a mind in the fetus and research backs us up. DNA is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a human being. It directs the construction and some of the operation of the human body and brain, but thinking is a dynamic process performed by the brain. DNA is much too slow to have any part in the process. You can extract DNA from someone who's clinically dead and starting to rot. Identical twins have identical DNA but they're two separate persons. But if an intact brain isn't producing a mind then flesh is all you have. SB: "By virtue of being a member of the human family, the fetus will someday have a mind if it doesn’t have one already. It should not be penalized for the dubious crime of not being fully developed." Every cell in your body can someday have a mind if we only get a little better at IVF and cloning. Until we do, the trillions of babies we could make out of the cells in your body have the same rights as everything else that doesn't exist: none. Now if you intend to make a baby then you have a duty to make that baby as perfect as possible. If you make a baby and it is born with flippers for arms or Downs syndrome then I think that baby should have the right to sue you for knowingly producing him with a severe handicap instead of stopping the pregnancy and starting over. I guess that was another lesson from the Finkbine case. Most of us realized that she was doing the right thing, the moral thing. (And she did have a normal healthy baby a year or two later.) I think such lawsuits would do more to put some sense into the antis than anything else. SB: "According to traditional Christian philosophy, the soul is the animating principle (form) of the body (matter). So it could hardly be the case than a new discovery about the body, however edifying, could change that dynamic. Perhaps the “conservative” Christians that you allude to were not so conservative after all. I don't think much of traditional Christian philosophy. I think that ALL philosophies would benefit from a large dose of reality. "Science pulls the cart of philosophy." I think Daniel Dennett said that. SB  "No one will ever know what the fate of Finkbine’s baby would have been if a natural birth would have been allowed." Unfortunately, we have a very good idea. It would have been born with one arm, no legs and probably dead. Bless Mrs. Finkbine for taking the responsible, moral position and starting over.  SB: "Doctor’s should try to help people, not kill people." But we know that a fetus is not a person. The son Mrs. Finkbine gave birth to on the second try was. SB "Roe vs Wade was not influenced by popular attitude. Quite the contrary. The Supreme Court arrogated unto itself the right to ignore both the natural law and the prevailing popular opinion on abortion to force a minority view on the states." As I said in my last post, they applied new knowledge to the law and prevented the government from forcing people to do terrible, immoral things like give birth to babies with one arm and no legs instead of stopping the pregnancy and starting over.MatSpirit
August 23, 2015
August
08
Aug
23
23
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Hi StevenB. I looked up Sherri Finkbine on Wiki. In 1962 she was a mother of four and hostess of a children's TV show in Phoenix. If you look at Mary Tyler Moore on the old Dick Van Duke show, she's a dead ringer. Her husband bought some tranquilizers on a trip to England and a year later she used the remainder. She was in early pregnancy at the time. Shortly later they learned what Thalidomide did to fetuses. Her doctor "strongly recommended" a therapeutic abortion and one was scheduled in a Pheonix hospital. Sherri told her story to a friend at a local newspaper to warn others, but her name was leaked. Instant nationwide publicity bombshell, complete with total loss of privacy, death threats and loss of her job. The Phoenix hospital asked for a guarantee that they wouldn't be prosecuted and couldn't get one, so they reneged on the abortion. She tried Japan, where abortion was legal, but they wouldn't grant her a visa. Finally Sweden took her in and the abortion was performed on Aug 18, 1962. The single fetus had no legs, only one arm and it was such a malformed mess the doctors couldn't determine its sex. They said it would never have survived. Up until that time nobody was particularly thinking about abortion. If they did think of it, they thought of a dirty back alley operation run by a greedy sleaze ball in soiled clothing who performed his operations mostly on sluts. (In the early 60s, slut was the technical term for an unmarried woman who had sex. Stud was the term for a man who had sex. The obvious imbalance here was not mentioned.) Now it was Laura Petrie in a jam and doctors in clean suits who were being prevented from giving her help she desperately needed by a meddling government. NOBODY wanted that poor fetus to be born. Wiki says a Gallup poll showed that 52% of the country thought she'd done the right thing and 77% wanted abortion legalized to protect the health of the mother. This was a watershed event. It put a new face on people who got abortions. No longer an irresponsible and sinful slut trying to avoid paying for her sins. Now we're looking at a mother of four who was in a catastrophic jam. It gave us a new picture of what was being aborted too. It was no longer a smiling baby just biding its time waiting to be born. Now it was a horrible monster that nobody wanted to be brought to term. Even the people who vehemently opposed abortion were hoping that poor thing would die. The second watershed event came in 1965 when Life magazine published a remarkable series of photographs by Lennart Nilsson of human fetuses in all stages of development from egg to ready to be born. I'm sure everybody has seen them by now. These photos showed us that even a healthy fetus was nothing like a baby during early pregnancy. By then it was obvious to a lot of people that most abortions weren't killing a baby because there was no baby in the womb to kill. Given that and Sherry Finkbine's tragic demonstration that preventing an abortion in early pregnancy could cause horrible evil, the anti-abortion laws began to look unjust and oppressive. A couple of states repealed theirs and a few years later came Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade codified this new knowledge into law. In the 1st trimester, when there was no possibility of a baby being in the womb, the Supreme Court freed the mother and doctor from needless government interference and left all decisions in their hands. In later stages of pregnancy when the fetus was at least starting to get baby shaped and there was a faint possibility of consciousness, they left room for government supervision. Subsequent studies of fetal development and how the mind works has shown that the mind can't really begin to develop until birth because it has to interact with the world to form. More on that and your other points later. It's lateMatSpirit
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
SB: “Inasmuch as the existence of mind is your standard for determining human worth, you must have some idea of exactly when a human being finally acquires one.” MatSpirit
This is the best question I’ve seen asked by any anti-abortionist in this thread and it’s the hardest to answer. We know that a functioning mind is impossible in the early stages of gestation. There’s just not enough brain to possibly support one. 95 percent of all abortions are done before 20 weeks and the chance of a mind at that stage is nil.
First, we have to define what a mind is. You say, for example, that we are our mind. I would argue that we use our mind to think just as we use our will to decide, and I believe that I can defend that claim. If I am right, then who we are cannot be synonymous with a faculty that we use. Some of us hold, for very good reasons, that the mind is an immaterial faculty of an immortal soul, which is present from the moment of conception. In other words, we hold that the mind, unlike the brain, is not a physical organ. If that is true, then the existence of an immaterial mind, as a faculty of an immaterial soul, may well precede the brain. Yes, we know that the mind's operation is, in this life anyway, dependent on the brain, but we do not know that its existence depends on the brain. Indeed, I would argue forcefully that it does not. In any case, you are, it seems to me, granting a right to life based on an arbitrary standard, which itself, is based on a conjecture. In effect, you are saying that you do not value an early fetus because it likely does not have a mind, but you have not explained why your standard of value should prevail or why the fetus should have to clear that bar to have any rights. The presence of DNA, on the other hand, is not arbitrary nor is it conjecture. We can determine that the fetus is human based on the facts of science. It is, in part, on that basis, that most of us believe the fetus deserves to live. By virtue of being a member of the human family, the fetus will someday have a mind if it doesn't have one already. It should not be penalized for the dubious crime of not being fully developed.
I was in high school in the years before Roe v Wade and read about all the new developments in embryology “live” as they happened. I remember believing abortion was murder at one point because, you know, it’s killing a baby. It was just common knowledge.
Yes.
But then I started learning more and more about eggs and embryos and fetuses and brains and minds. I mean, new information just rained on us in those days. It was a wonderful time. I don’t know exactly when I realized that a fetus was just flesh and had no spirit, but I certainly wasn’t alone in my change of beliefs. The whole country was starting to realize that there was no spirit in the womb, even many conservative (Protestant) clergy. And then came Sherri Finkbine and Thalidomide and suddenly things got very serious.
According to traditional Christian philosophy, the soul is the animating principle (form) of the body (matter). So it could hardly be the case than a new discovery about the body, however edifying, could change that dynamic. Perhaps the "conservative" Christians that you allude to were not so conservative after all.
I think most of the country realized that her fetus(s? I can’t remember) was still just flesh, but if she was forced to carry it (them?) to term it would develop a normal mind trapped in a terribly deformed body. I remember widespread relief when she made it to Sweden for an abortion.
Though one could point to many unfortunate examples of potential human suffering, especially those that involve the prospect of a handicapped child, it doesn't really speak to the question of whether or not humans are composed of body and soul. Dr. Ben Carson, the presidential candidate, once separated a pair of twins joined at the skull. Both live and live well. No one will ever know what the fate of Finkbine's baby would have been if a natural birth would have been allowed. Of course, happy endings are not always the result, but the worth of a human being is not determined by his or her ability to function in a normal way. Doctor's should try to help people, not kill people.
After that, states started relaxing their prohibitions on abortion and even most clergy at least tentatively approved. Roe v Wade came and still there was pretty general approval. But then the barrage of organized fanatical anti-abortion resistance began.
Roe vs Wade was not influenced by popular attitude. Quite the contrary. The Supreme Court arrogated unto itself the right to ignore both the natural law and the prevailing popular opinion on abortion to force a minority view on the states. Thank you for sharing some of your history. I appreciated learning about it.StephenB
August 22, 2015
August
08
Aug
22
22
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
StephenB: "Why does the right to life depend on the existence of a mind as opposed to, say, the existence of human DNA?" Youre not DNA. Its an important part of you, but its not you. A hair on your comb has your DNA in it. If I take one of those hairs and burn it, your DNA will be utterly destroyed, but you won't be harmed in any way. If I destroy your brain, your mind is destroyed with it and you're dead. You ARE your mind. That's why your mind has rights - because you have rights and your mind is you. All your knowledge is held in your mind, all your hopes and dreams are in your mind, all your loves, all your hates - you ARE your mind. The rest of your body supports your mind and lets it act in the world. If your mind suddenly stops working, you collapse into utter unconsciousness. If your mind never starts working again, then you are dead. StephenB: "Inasmuch as the existence of mind is your standard for determining human worth, you must have some idea of exactly when a human being finally acquires one." This is the best question I've seen asked by any anti-abortionist in this thread and it's the hardest to answer. We know that a functioning mind is impossible in the early stages of gestation. There's just not enough brain to possibly support one. 95 percent of all abortions are done before 20 weeks and the chance of a mind at that stage is nil. After that, it's harder to guarantee a mind is not present because it's so hard to study an unresponsive subject shrouded in the womb. Most of what we do know is from studying premature babies, but since the mind seems to start developing at birth, they probably aren't representative of a fetus in the womb. Representative or not, there's not much evidence for a pre-natal mind. Maybe some sensitivity to pain, but probably nobody home to experience it. Anyway, you've hit on the hardest question for the pro-spirit side to answer. Certainly no mind before 20 weeks, very probably none before birth. Me: "Remember that the mind plays tricks with us when strongly held beliefs are challenged and we’re liable to make false assumptions (medical doctors at Planned Parenthood are greed crazed monsters who kill babies for Lamborghinis for example) that help us retain those beliefs even when we’re mistaken." StephenB: "That comment seems to describe your own behavior. Your strong beliefs prompted you to make a number of unwarranted assumptions." Not really. I was in high school in the years before Roe v Wade and read about all the new developments in embryology "live" as they happened. I remember believing abortion was murder at one point because, you know, it's killing a baby. It was just common knowledge. But then I started learning more and more about eggs and embryos and fetuses and brains and minds. I mean, new information just rained on us in those days. It was a wonderful time. I don't know exactly when I realized that a fetus was just flesh and had no spirit, but I certainly wasn't alone in my change of beliefs. The whole country was starting to realize that there was no spirit in the womb, even many conservative (Protestant) clergy. And then came Sherri Finkbine and Thalidomide and suddenly things got very serious. I think most of the country realized that her fetus(s? I can't remember) was still just flesh, but if she was forced to carry it (them?) to term it would develop a normal mind trapped in a terribly deformed body. I remember widespread relief when she made it to Sweden for an abortion. After that, states started relaxing their prohibitions on abortion and even most clergy at least tentatively approved. Roe v Wade came and still there was pretty general approval. But then the barrage of organized fanatical anti-abortion resistance began. It's one a.m. and past my bedtime. I'll be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow, but I'm just bushed now. Thanks for the intelligent questions.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Mr Arrington as to:
"What kind of monster values imaginary aliens over live babies? God help us."
Although atheists, many times, protest that they are just as moral as Christians, it is now shown that those who do not believe in a soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of people in America who do believe in a soul. This psychopathic characteristic inherent to the atheistic philosophy is born out empirically. You can pick up a psychopathic study that was conducted on atheists around the 14:30 minute mark of this following video:
Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video - 14:30 minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s
Here are the papers:
A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. - Anthony I. Jack - 2013 Excerpt page 18: we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,, In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7. Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9. http://tonyjack.org/files/2013%20Jack%20A%20scientific%20case%20for%20conceptual%20dualism%20%281%29.pdf Anthony Jack is a physicalist. In trying to develop a physical theory of consciousness he proposes that for most people the problem of consciousness, the appearance of dualism, is caused by different brain networks used for thinking about mechanisms (ie how the brain works) and for understanding social situations (ie how people feel). According to Jack, it isn’t a natural gap but a gap due to brain physiology and psychopaths lack social thinking (are callous) so they don’t see the problem. Why Don't Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? The Role of Opposing Brain Networks Anthony Jack (Case Western Reserve University, Cognitive Science, Cleveland, OH In a theoretical paper linking the attribution of phenomenal consciousness to moral cognition, Robbins and Jack (Philosophical Studies, 2006) predicted that psychopaths would not perceive the problem of consciousness. New experimental evidence is presented which supports this claim: in a group of undergraduates it was found that support for a naturalistic view of the mind is positively correlated with the primary psychopathic trait of callousness. http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/goinggreen.html
Here is a dramatic personal testimony of the psychopathic characteristic inherent to atheism from a former violently psychopathic atheist who is now, thank God, a Christian:
Why I Am a Christian (David Wood, Former Psychopathic Atheist) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakEcY7Z5GU
The following video is informative for laying out the logic of why atheism necessarily leads to increased immorality
The Inner State of the Non Local Mind - Johanan Raatz - video (Why Atheistic materialism necessarily leads to increased immorality) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtsNVds4XWI
Here are some sobering stats
Compilation of morality statistics that don't bode well for atheists: Section 11. http://creation.com/atheism
Moreover, atheists have more health problems and die sooner than Christian Theists. Here is the stat on the increased mortality of atheists
A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health
bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
MatSpirit:
I look at the picture at the beginning of the post and I say, “Ewww! Gross!
Yes, it does appear that your sense impressions rule your faculty of intellect and define its operations.
I look at the picture at the beginning of the post and reflect that it’s human FLESH and its even ickier.
Yep, that would be consistent with your pattern. Feel first, think later.
But I realize that no MINDS were destroyed with relief and I feel the same thing about the MINDS that are not in that dish that I feel for all the babies that BA77 has never brought into the world and their non-existent children and grand children.
You take everything for granted and explain nothing: Why does the right to life depend on the existence of a mind as opposed to, say, the existence of human DNA? Inasmuch as the existence of mind is your standard for determining the value of life, you must have some idea of exactly when a human being finally acquires one. You claim that a fetus does not have a mind, so you must know when a human being finally reaches that threshold. When would that be? How do you know you are correct? For that matter, how do you know that a fetus does not have a mind? Why would you even think such a thing?
Remember that the mind plays tricks with us when strongly held beliefs are challenged and we’re liable to make false assumptions (medical doctors at Planned Parenthood are greed crazed monsters who kill babies for Lamborghinis for example) that help us retain those beliefs even when we’re mistaken.
That comment seems to describe your own behavior. Your strong beliefs prompted you to make a number of unwarranted assumptions.StephenB
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
What kind of monster values imaginary aliens over live babies? God help us.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
In argumentation, it's called a hypothetical. You pose hypotheticals to help you think about real situations. "Why do we root for the little non-human? What is it about him, as he is portrayed in the movie, that makes it so obviously evil to kill him? After all, he's not a human. Why do I want him to get away?" I think there's a rather obvious reason why an anti-abortionist can't even consider the case of an intelligent alien. He'd have to either say the intelligent alien could be shot with impunity because he's not human or consider the very real possibility that it's the intelligence that counts and the whole anti-abortion movement is wrong. And if that's the case, then the anti-abortionists have done a lot of truly terrible things.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Mat @ 130, If one day I realized that the only way I could make sense of my desire to justify killing certain kinds of humans was to make up imaginary scenarios with absolutely no connection to known reality, I am pretty sure it would give me pause. Mat, you are OK with killing little humans. We get it. You are evil. But don't insult us by trying to justify your evil by saying you wouldn't kill imaginary beings who are unlike the humans you are OK killing. Discussion over.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
I'm going to dinner now. Back in about two hours.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Barry: "You don’t seem to get it. Let me make it as absolutely plain as I can: I am not going to talk about imaginary aliens." I think I do. Remember that warning I gave about how our minds will play tricks on us when deeply held beliefs are attacked. If you let yourself think about ET and the whole question of whether killing an intelligent alien would be murder, it becomes very hard not to conclude it's because they've got minds. Its obvious that they have one. You can talk to them. A mind is the only thing we have in common. They haven't got a human cell in their body. And that's something nobody deeply embedded in the anti abortion moment dares do. Because if abortion ISN'T immoral then the anti-abortion movement looks really, really bad. So the mind concentrates on "They're human!" and avoids thinking about anything that could possibly lead to considering flesh vs mind.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
MatSpirit @ 128 Hermann Göring doubtless looked at the piles of Jewish bodies and said "Ewww! Gross!" And he doubtless reflected on the fact they were piles of human FLESH and felt even ickier. But then he comforted himself with the thought that no humans that he believed had lives worth living were destroyed. Mat, you are unspeakably evil.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
I look at the picture at the beginning of the post and I say, "Ewww! Gross!" I look at the picture at the beginning of the post and reflect that it's human FLESH and its even ickier. But I realize that no MINDS were destroyed with relief and I feel the same thing about the MINDS that are not in that dish that I feel for all the babies that BA77 has never brought into the world and their non-existent children and grand children. Nothing, because they don't exist, just like the 53,284 non-existent babies that aren't sitting on your keyboard right now.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Now, if you want to talk about reality I am all for it. For example, if you want to talk about how you can look at the picture at the beginning of this post and say "I'm perfectly OK with that. That little brute's life was unworthy of my notice or protection because he is different from me" then by all means let us do that.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Mat, You don't seem to get it. Let me make it as absolutely plain as I can: I am not going to talk about imaginary aliens.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Come on Barry, the logical implication of what you said was that we can kill ET because he doesn't have a human heart. Writing "So are you saying we can kill ET because he doesn’t have a human heart?" Is a standard way of stating that implication in order to respond to it. It's obviously not a quote. Didn't you see the words "So are you saying" at the beginning of the sentence? Or the question mark after it? There's absolutely no excuse for calling me a liar and it makes you look bad. I'll ask the question again. Can we kill ET or would it be murder? If it would be murder, what about ET makes it so. He's definitely not human. What does he have that makes killing him murder?MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
MatSpirit looks at the picture at the beginning of this post and says "I'm OK with that." Evil is rarely distilled so purely.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Mat
that’s why killing them was murder.
No, killing them was murder because they were human. Actually, in a purely technical legal sense, it was not "murder" at all, because the Holocaust did not violate any internal laws of the German state. Just as killing unborn babies and chopping them up is not technically "murder" in the United States. That should give you pause Mat. I doubt that it will.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Mat,
So are you saying we can kill ET because he doesn’t have a human heart?
This is, of course, a deliberate lie on your part. I never said any such thing. I called your ET question a distraction and treated it with contempt. I did not answer it.
Does it bother you to say we can kill something that can talk to us?
If I had said that it probably would. Fortunately, I did not. Does it bother you that you feel compelled to resort to lies, distortions and distractions to support your case? I think it would bother me.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Let me add a step to my last message. Talking implies a mind. Those Jews the Nazis could talk to had minds and that's why killing them was murder.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
So are you saying we can kill ET because he doesn't have a human heart? What do you think he would say about that? Does it bother you to say we can kill something that can talk to us? Like those Jews could talk?MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
You keep avoiding the key question in abortion: Does a mind exist in the fetus?
The question is not only not the "key question"; it is a totally irrelevant question. The relevant question is “Is there human life?” And the answer to that question is “Yes.” Abortion stops a beating human heart. And that is why it is evil. And that is why you are evil for advocating for it. Your arbitrary demarcation between one stage of human development and another is no different from the arbitrary distinction between “Lebensunwertes Leben” and Lebenswertes Leben.” The only difference between you and a Nazi is the basis upon which you choose who lives and who dies -- i.e., whose life is "worthy" and whose life is "unworthy."
Perhaps we can turn away from some of the hatred that way.
If Hermann Göring had said that in 1943, people would have probably thought he was being intentionally ironical. If not, he certainly would have been unintentionally ironical. I think the same thing about you. MatSpirit: “Turn away from the hatred. Except for those babies who have yet to escape from their mother’s womb. Feel free to hate them enough to butcher them and sell the pieces.”
Here’s a new direction to approach the question from . . .
Translation: Here’s a new way to distract from the fact that I am in favor of butchering unborn humans and selling the parts like pieces of meat. Let's talk about ET. He was cute.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
MatSpirit, nothing to see here, move along, eh? Methinks you are being far to dismissive and flippant to the question at hand, but so be it. It's your choice (as if you even had a choice in atheistic materialism in the first place).bornagain77
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Barry: You keep avoiding the key question in abortion: Does a mind exist in the fetus? Remember what I said about the mind playing tricks on us when strongly held beliefs are challenged. It's distracting your attention from the mind question right now. Anybody whose emotions are not involved can see it. If you concentrate your efforts on finding out if a mind exists you will be a long way towards answering the only important question about abortion. Here's a new direction to approach the question from. If the movie character ET was real, would it be murder to kill him? If not, why? He's certainly not human. What does ET have that an adult human being has that makes killing either one murder? The answer is that they both have minds. And a fetus doesn't.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Tell Mr. Talbot that the code and information still exist, at least until decay sets in, but that organisms are dynamic structures and once they've been halted air and nutrients are no longer carried to the cells so the cells can no longer manufacture ATP and everything grinds to a halt. There's more to it, of course, but this should be enough to get him started. I'd suggest he read "How We Die: Reflections of Life's Final Chapter" by Sherwin Nuland for more information.MatSpirit
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Barry:
Do you believe it is evil to split a human face in two while the human’s heart is still beating so that you can rip out his brain and sell it like a piece of meat?
MatSpirit
What’s the condition of that brain? If it’s supporting a mind, then yes it’s very evil. But if the brain hasn’t developed enough to support a mind, then we’re just talking about spiritless flesh. In that case, ask the woman what she wants done with it.
I will tell you the condition of the brain Mat. It is a human brain. And it is a human heart that is still beating when that human face is ripped in two so that the human brain can be ripped from the human cranium and sold to monsters – monsters like you Mat.
Perhaps we can turn away from some of the hatred that way.
Hatred is as hatred does Mat, and you are one of the most abhorrent haters I have ever seen. The insouciance with which you condemn tiny humans to horrifying deaths at the hands of heartless butchers beggars belief. “It’s a boy” one of butchers in the video said as she was chopping it up. A boy, Mat. Not a lump of inanimate flesh.Barry Arrington
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply