Abortion

But we do - as a society of many divergent faiths and beliefs - make those distinctions at the end of life situations where the body lives on but the person is gone.I don't want to repeat the whole point that is made in my topic on this issue, but go down this post to {legal death}http://EvC Forum: Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and AbortionThen there is the discussion of personhood that allows some families to decide to "pull the plug" while other will insist on keeping the "feeding tube" in at all costs.The ethics of this has been, legally, to let the family decide. To each according to their belief.I don't think we ever will find a {scientific aha! point} that will satisfy everyone. We can agree to a basic ethical process that allows for variations in belief, based on definitions of what constitutes (1) human life and (2) personhood.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes. For all the same reasoning as originally posted. The question is whether a foetus is a person. If it could be shown that no line can be drawn between foetus and person and as a result it became necessary to err on the side of caution, then how the person got there would be irrelevant - they would have human rights. An individuals human rights cannot be affected by the breaking of anothers human rights.Incidently, someone I know was told during pregnancy that her foetus had Downs Syndrome as well as other complications which would result in it not surviving more that a few weeks after birth. She was strongly advised to have an abortion. Three years on and she is the proud mother of a healthy boy - who has no Downs Syndrome or any other issue apart from some minor hearing loss.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Keeping to the issue of abortion. If no one knows how to define what makes an individual (other than subjectively) and even if they did know but they are not in a position to know whether a foetus is one, then they must err on the side of safety.Once human rights are established (and given that they cannot be objectively denied they must be presumed of the foetus: on the basis of innocent until proven guilty as it were), the beliefs of the parents-to-be can't override those rights -as beliefs should never override human rights.This is an area where man is not in a position to make absolute judgments. And given what is at stake - life - then he should show a bit of humility and say he doesn't know. And leave well alone until he does - if ever he does

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Who says the mind is an exclusive function of the brain. The brain may well be the vehicle in which the mind rides in order to express itself could it not?Oxford Biochemist Arthur Peacocke "Science can investigate all the physical aspects of the brain but there is still something about the mind - and therefore about who you really are - that it cannot get at"Albert Jay Nock " When the men of science have had all their say about the human mind and heart, how far are they from accounting for all their phenomena, or from answering the simple, vital questions that one askes them! What is the power by which a certain number and order of air vibrations is translated into processes of great emotional significance. If anyone can answer that question, believe me, he is just the man I want to see"While under a local anaesthetic, an epileptics scalp was lifted away and the cranium opened to allow the surgeon direct access to the brain. Using an electrical probe, he touched that part of the brain which made the right hand move. As the hand moved he said to the patient "You moved your right hand" The patient replied "No, you did" Evidently the mans self awareness was not directly related to the brain. The surgeon then directed the patient to will his hand not to move. The patient agreed to resist moving it in his mind and as the hand began to twitch due to the application of the electrical probe, the patients left hand reached over and stopped the right hand from moving. The physician could control the brain but the mind of the patient, which trancended the brain, moved the left hand to stop it.
The surgeon couldn't control the mind - only the brain.Until such time as we know that the mind is a function of the brain we cannot assume it to be so. Experiementing with the brain my may well remove the means the mind has to express itself but Science cannot determine when the mind itself begins or ends. It may exist from the moment of fertilization until the moment of death. It may exist beyond that. One may make presumptions on materialistically philosophical grounds. But that's not the same as it actually being the case.
The foetus, should be presumed to be a person (innocent) until proven not to be (guilty). That's the safe option when you don't know either way. Placing 'safe' bets with anothers life is not ours to decide - when we have no way of quantifying 'safe'

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

quote:

---

While under a local anaesthetic, an epileptics scalp was lifted away and the cranium opened to allow the surgeon direct access to the brain. Using an electrical probe, he touched that part of the brain which made the right hand move. As the hand moved he said to the patient "You moved your right hand" The patient replied "No, you did" Evidently the mans self awareness was not directly related to the brain. The surgeon then directed the patient to will his hand not to move. The patient agreed to resist moving it in his mind and as the hand began to twitch due to the application of the electrical probe, the patients left hand reached over and stopped the right hand from moving. The physician could control the brain but the mind of the patient, which trancended the brain, moved the left hand to stop it.
The surgeon couldn't control the mind - only the brain.

---

Where is this from?

That doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing "proof"... The surgeon obviously stimulated a motoric center of some sort, which is also obviously not autonomous but controllable by other areas of the brain (where you would locate the "mind"). With a deeper knowledge it might in principle be possible to stimulate one of these areas instead, which would *indirectly* move the arm. And in such a way that the person would NOT be able to override it. It's just more complex.You wrote While you really had to say Evidently the mans self awareness was not directly related to that part of the brainIt would have been *slightly* convincing if the patient didn't need his OTHER arm to hold the first one.

Original citation see Robert A. Morey 'The New Atheism and the Erosion of freedom. P 104. I read it in a book "Does God believe in Athiests?" by John Blanchard (which has a reviewer state on the back "no self-respecting atheist should be without (this book)"This message has been edited by iano, 30-Aug-2005 01:25 PM

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Do you mean "does God believe in atheists?"I'm a self-respecting atheist and that book was (as I remember) full of the usual fundie stawmen coupled with some rather belittling ideas of other relgions.I'll have to investigate the morey one further...

Be that as it may, AF, the idea that the mind (which you may agree is the essential essence of a 'person' - that bit which we would last chose to have removed of ourselves) resides solely in the brain remains to be established. The presumption that a functioning central nervous system is a necessary precursor to a foetus becoming a person is just that. When people have some compelling (given the seriousness of what we are discussing) objective evidence that this is indeed that case then the abortions can commence. Until then, we have a philosophy, deciding that abortion is okay. Better be safe than sorry, innocent until proven guilty, look before you leap, live to fight another day. There is ample in our experience to say to us: "if you don't know, play it safe"

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Sorry CK, I've corrected the title. Which reminds me of the usual atheistic-fundi tactic. Name calling.
Some sticks n' stones would be more profitable CK. As regards this topic - can the mind (person) can be objectively shown to reside solely in the brain. If so, no brain = no mind = no person = abortion has some objective grounds for being acceptable. I didn't know you were an "all paths-to-the-summit" afficiando too You are a most certainly complex person CK

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Quite right. So until you can prove the existence of this "soul" thing we'll keep right on erring on the side of caution and letting women have free choice over their bodies.

What naming calling? You mentioned a book, I've read it and thought it was crap - that's my outlook on the second book you mentioned. As crash has pointed out to you a number of times people don't take too kindly to you misrepresenting what they have said.I cannot find any evidence for the example you have provided from the first book, so can you show us your example actually happened?The name of a doctor? a hospital? a study?As for the second one - all those paths go nowhere but I get sick and fucking tired of christians demanding respect for their religion while ragging on other people. They want some respect they need to show it first.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 08:41 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 08:43 AM

Er...who mentioned soul? 'Mind' was the word used. And we all agree we have one of those and we all (until objective evidence indicates otherwise) agree that the mind hasn't been shown to solely reside in the brain (as opposed to use the mechanical brain to carry out it's will). The mind could be a completely natural occurring event. It doesn't (for the sake of this discussion) necessarily need Goddidit.If the philosophy " the mind/person derives from the central nervous system' is correct then no worries when the central nervous system isn't there. If it is not correct then abortion is murder. Now, did Hitler murder people or just philosophically abort at whatever cut off point he decided. 2 months, 14 years 44 years? Whose to say his philosophy was wrong - someone elses philosophy?That's like saying whoevers philosophy has the most guns is 'right'? Which is kind of how it is with abortion.Err on the side of caution: allow a woman control over her own body vs killing a person (who is a person at every point - except for an arbitary line is drawn in the sand)I'll repeat a question posed earlier. If the arbitary line is drawn at say 25 weeks and a premature baby of 22 weeks is born and is kept alive for a week by medicine and is progressing well. Can it be killed (aborted) at that point because it is still under the cut of point?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

If you're not assigning the mind to the brain, you're assigning it to a supernatural element - we usually call that hypothetical supernatural entity "soul". There is no competing naturalistic explaination.Trouble is the naturalistic explaination has a wealth of empirical evidence on it's side; while the supernatural one has pure speculation and a big pile of philosophical problems on the other.You're acting like in the absence of absolute proof both explainations are equal. This is not so. In every single case where a phenomena has been explained it has been explained by a naturalistic phenomena. Not once in the history of the world has a supernatural explanation triumphed. Not only that but the naturalistic side actually has evidence for it; while the supernaturalistic side has none. No. It's been born; it's no longer placing a physical burden on the mother. Abortion is about the mother; not the fetus.

Then you won't mind if statements you yourself make are dismissed with words like "typical atheist/evo-fundi rubbish". Don't think we'll get far that way. Not that I intend to use this tactic As Crash once said to me, "I'm not here to wetnurse you" CK. I've given the reference, (publisher~: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co (I feel a 'fundi-moment coming on!)). If you can't find it that's not my problem. "Google Uber Alles" has about as much foundation to it as "Empiricism Uber Alles" - the world by and large thinks otherwise. It's me your dealing with here and I'm not demanding anything from your regarding respect for Christianity. You can say what you want about it. No offence will be taken - by me anyway. Words like fundi don't upset because they show a lack of respect for Christianity. Its because they show a lack of respect - period.I think every other belief (including athesim) than Christianity is wrong - but I try not to rag for rags sake. Can't say I always succeed

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."