Drilling in Alaska

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

The position of the Catholic CHURCH is that life begins at conception. The Catholic church, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, for example, has more leeway in interpretation. Their position of when life begins is long standing, back to Augustine. Ensoulment is a different matter, and their are conflicting opinions on that as well.

Zig, what about the baby at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours? Why draw the 'viable outside the mother's body' distinction?

That is its position now. So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

Did I say anything about truth. I was explaining the difference between the positions of the churches.

YOu stated the Catholic churches position. But, that position has changed. Therefore truth has changed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

Well, the CC must had some sorta wild understandings as they flip flopped more times than Kerry.

Most of it immediate ensoulment/animation wasn't possible.

Pope Sixtus made the penatly for abortion/contraception excom. Then along comes Greg who reversed that. The comes Pius 9 and we are back to exom.

But, at no point did any of them ever say life begins at contraception...Rather, it is a statement that we don't know the time of ensoulment.

[mraynrand]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

Well, the CC must had some sorta wild understandings as they flip flopped more times than Kerry.

Most of it immediate ensoulment/animation wasn't possible.

Pope Sixtus made the penatly for abortion/contraception excom. Then along comes Greg who reversed that. The comes Pius 9 and we are back to exom.

But, at no point did any of them ever say life begins at contraception...Rather, it is a statement that we don't know the time of ensoulment.

I have to agree with you on that one.

[hoosier]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

This is an interesting comparison. Kant says that there are absolute truths, but that the only knowledge we can have of them is negative (the real experience of the mind not being able to get there). This negative experience has two important ramifications: it confirms for us that we are moral beings (rejection of Humean relativism) but it also means that nobody can claim to have the Truth in their back pocket. That's what distinguishes Kant from a moralizer who wants everyone to live their lives by his truth. Where does Rand stand on this? This is a totally innocent question...have no idea what Rand says about morality.

[HowardRoark]

Damn, I leave for a day to go to the Badger game and return to read Ty pontificating on Christian theology. I laughed so hard I literally had tears in my eyes. Galatians 2:20 "... the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself to me. Do you even know what this is talking about? Talk about casting a swine before pearls.

Ty also quotes ancient times…Plato, Sparta, etc. while on the other hand lectures about how everything is evolving forward and science now is all that matters. Science can explain everything we are told by Ty and his ilk. Well, science doesn’t explain anything, it merely measures everything. What does science measure when it comes to this issue? New and different DNA, heart, spine, brain and limbs.

It is quite humorous that everyone has been duped into calling this a “moral” issue. That is the language of one side of this debate (hint: it’s not the Pro-Life side). Everything is a moral issue….or not. I am pro-Choice on rape. I can choose anyone I want to have sex with at anytime of my choosing. Why not? There are no universal truths, so don’t bring your morality into it.

The Bible probably never does say in chapter and verse that abortion is wrong or specifically when life begins. It does however on many, many occasions refer to the so called “thingy” in the womb as a human. Good enough for me. And the Bible tells us not to kill. It’s pretty easy to merge these two concepts. But who cares about the Bible anyway? Don’t ram any morality down my throat.

Morality. Interesting concept.

Some things are just so intuitive that it really is ridiculous. There will be a day in the future when they look back at these times and just wonder what the hell we were even thinking.

[mraynrand]

Howard,

Science tells me that 'embryo' becomes 'human' when the three major layers - ecoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm are specified. Another scientist believes it is when the anterior Hox gene cluster is actively transcribed. Who is correct?

[HowardRoark]

Howard,

Science tells me that 'embryo' becomes 'human' when the three major layers - ecoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm are specified. Another scientist believes it is when the anterior Hox gene cluster is actively transcribed. Who is correct?

I suppose it has to be the determination of the Übermensch scientist.

[HowardRoark]

I agree with this article. It is a dupe job on the Left to say this is a theological or moral issue.

September 08, 2008, 4:13 p.m.

In the Beginning
The Democratic ticket confuses science and theology.

By Yuval Levin


Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama raised some eyebrows in last month’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency when in reply to the question “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” he said:

Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

In the explanations that Obama and others have since offered to expand upon this answer, it quickly became clear that Obama was not answering the question as it was asked. His answer, instead, was directed to the question of when life begins, and in addressing that question Obama did not mean to suggest that he was not capable of grasping the scientific facts that would underlie an answer, but that the question is essentially about theology, and that he’s no theologian.


Obama and his running mate both made that particularly clear this past weekend, when in separate interviews both were asked to clarify their views on the beginning of human life. Obama said:

As a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into, in, it's a pretty tough question. And so all I meant to communicate is that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.

Biden, as usual far more expansive in his answer, put it this way:

I'd say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life—I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Both insist that the question of when a human life begins is a theological question, and so one without a generally applicable answer. But in fact, the question of when a new human life begins is not fundamentally a theological question but a biological question. After conception is concluded, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before — a member of our species in every way, alive and human. That is when the life of that human being starts. That life will proceed in one continuous path until death, whether that comes days later in a lab dish, months later in a clinic, or decades later in a nursing home surrounded by children and grandchildren. Human life has a straightforward scientific definition, and its beginning in biological terms is complicated only by questions about the process of conception itself. When conception is completed and a developing embryo exists, a life has begun.


That fact does not by itself necessarily settle the abortion or embryo research debates. After all this new human being is at first very small, for a little while does not resemble anyone we encounter in our daily life, and at first does not even feel pain or exhibit any but the simplest autonomic responses. The embryo and the fetus are different in some important physical respects from most of us. So the question is not when life begins, but whether every human life is equal.


For some people, this question of equality does have a theological component, for others it does not. But either way the question obviously has a political and legal component, and indeed America’s political tradition offers one answer to the question, written in the Declaration of Independence. We can disagree with the answer, but to do so we must take up the appropriate question: not when does life begin, but whether we are all created equal. Do all human beings share in some minimal equal humanity that entitles us to some minimal equal protections, like the protection from intentional killing, regardless of our age, our size, our capacities, abilities, and circumstances?


That’s not a question that answers itself. But it is the question at the heart of the abortion and embryo research debates, and Senators Obama and Biden are avoiding the question by insisting they lack an answer to the prior question — the question of the beginning of life — which they wrongly assert to be a matter of theology.

Now tell me again which party seeks refuge in theology when it doesn’t like the facts that science helps us know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Damn, I leave for a day to go to the Badger game and return to read Ty pontificating on Christian theology. I laughed so hard I literally had tears in my eyes. Galatians 2:20 "... the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself to me. Do you even know what this is talking about? Talk about casting a swine before pearls.

Ty also quotes ancient times…Plato, Sparta, etc. while on the other hand lectures about how everything is evolving forward and science now is all that matters. Science can explain everything we are told by Ty and his ilk. Well, science doesn’t explain anything, it merely measures everything. What does science measure when it comes to this issue? New and different DNA, heart, spine, brain and limbs.

It is quite humorous that everyone has been duped into calling this a “moral” issue. That is the language of one side of this debate (hint: it’s not the Pro-Life side). Everything is a moral issue….or not. I am pro-Choice on rape. I can choose anyone I want to have sex with at anytime of my choosing. Why not? There are no universal truths, so don’t bring your morality into it.

The Bible probably never does say in chapter and verse that abortion is wrong or specifically when life begins. It does however on many, many occasions refer to the so called “thingy” in the womb as a human. Good enough for me. And the Bible tells us not to kill. It’s pretty easy to merge these two concepts. But who cares about the Bible anyway? Don’t ram any morality down my throat.

Morality. Interesting concept.

Some things are just so intuitive that it really is ridiculous. There will be a day in the future when they look back at these times and just wonder what the hell we were even thinking.

Galatians: YEs, i do. And, your failure to rebutt tells me i'm as right as you.

Womb...nope. You are patently wrong. And, the bible clearly gives two distinct punishments. If an abortion was the same as killing a man/woman you wouldn't have two punishments.

Pro choice on rape: Yep, i guess the other party isn't really involved now is she. Your wife must be thrilled with your attitude.

Kill: I love it when you guys trot that out..but, then are for capital punishment and wars. I guess killing then is ok.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree with this article. It is a dupe job on the Left to say this is a theological or moral issue.

September 08, 2008, 4:13 p.m.

In the Beginning
The Democratic ticket confuses science and theology.

By Yuval Levin


Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama raised some eyebrows in last month’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency when in reply to the question “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” he said:

Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

In the explanations that Obama and others have since offered to expand upon this answer, it quickly became clear that Obama was not answering the question as it was asked. His answer, instead, was directed to the question of when life begins, and in addressing that question Obama did not mean to suggest that he was not capable of grasping the scientific facts that would underlie an answer, but that the question is essentially about theology, and that he’s no theologian.


Obama and his running mate both made that particularly clear this past weekend, when in separate interviews both were asked to clarify their views on the beginning of human life. Obama said:

As a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into, in, it's a pretty tough question. And so all I meant to communicate is that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.

Biden, as usual far more expansive in his answer, put it this way:

I'd say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life—I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Both insist that the question of when a human life begins is a theological question, and so one without a generally applicable answer. But in fact, the question of when a new human life begins is not fundamentally a theological question but a biological question. After conception is concluded, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before — a member of our species in every way, alive and human. That is when the life of that human being starts. That life will proceed in one continuous path until death, whether that comes days later in a lab dish, months later in a clinic, or decades later in a nursing home surrounded by children and grandchildren. Human life has a straightforward scientific definition, and its beginning in biological terms is complicated only by questions about the process of conception itself. When conception is completed and a developing embryo exists, a life has begun.


That fact does not by itself necessarily settle the abortion or embryo research debates. After all this new human being is at first very small, for a little while does not resemble anyone we encounter in our daily life, and at first does not even feel pain or exhibit any but the simplest autonomic responses. The embryo and the fetus are different in some important physical respects from most of us. So the question is not when life begins, but whether every human life is equal.


For some people, this question of equality does have a theological component, for others it does not. But either way the question obviously has a political and legal component, and indeed America’s political tradition offers one answer to the question, written in the Declaration of Independence. We can disagree with the answer, but to do so we must take up the appropriate question: not when does life begin, but whether we are all created equal. Do all human beings share in some minimal equal humanity that entitles us to some minimal equal protections, like the protection from intentional killing, regardless of our age, our size, our capacities, abilities, and circumstances?


That’s not a question that answers itself. But it is the question at the heart of the abortion and embryo research debates, and Senators Obama and Biden are avoiding the question by insisting they lack an answer to the prior question — the question of the beginning of life — which they wrongly assert to be a matter of theology.

Now tell me again which party seeks refuge in theology when it doesn’t like the facts that science helps us know.

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

So, you are going on record that the soul doesn't exist? Care to tell that to the evangelicals. Care to say that we are just flesh and blood without god/jesus.

[HowardRoark]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

So, you are going on record that the soul doesn't exist? Care to tell that to the evangelicals. Care to say that we are just flesh and blood without god/jesus.

Yes!!! That's my point!! Stop with the theology on this issue. Haven't you read my posts?

As far as how the body relates to the soul. The Greeks understood the human person as an "incarnate soul," meaning, the soul has prior existence, and the soul is the main thing in our humannness. The Hebrews understood the human person as an "animated body," meaning the body is the main thing, along with the spirit, from God, that causes the body to be something. The point is, the body is the heart and center of our faith, even as we look forward not to the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the flesh.

If we have an existence prior to or apart from the body, it is only in this sense, that we are in the mind, thoughts, plans of God.

[HowardRoark]

Galations is talking about spiritual matters. Not abortion matters.

Galatians: YEs, i do. And, your failure to rebutt tells me i'm as right as you.

I think there is another party involved in abortion, so I think my example works.

Yep, i guess the other party isn't really involved now is she.

It either is or it isn't. Start a thread on capital punishment if you want

Kill: I love it when you guys trot that out..but, then are for capital punishment and wars. I guess killing then is ok.

[Freak Out]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

[mraynrand]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

[mraynrand]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

It was first mentioned by the atheist - and referenced completely of of context. Then it was mentioned again by the same guy, claiming his 'point' hadn't been rebutted. It has been rebutted twice. Let's see if he tries again. We know that he is never wrong in his own mind, so I suspect it will be brought up again.