tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7831791900443457983..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The "woman's body" argument on abortion, and the village in your left armVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72181002738857167882016-12-23T09:36:13.483-07:002016-12-23T09:36:13.483-07:00@Mr. Green,
You said:
"I got the impression ...@Mr. Green,<br /><br />You said:<br />"I got the impression he wasn't denying our corporeity..."<br /><br />This is one instance among others that makes we wonder if he denies that we require a body:<br /><br />Joe Hinman:"the thing that lives on after death the core self is spirit."<br /><br />He then seems to make the connection that soul=spirit=mind. <br /><br />Next he takes a literally interpretations Exodus to conclude that we are only souls:<br />Joe Hinman:"it says in Exodus x number of souls went into egypt not x number of people with souls." <br /><br />So, it seems he reasons, if we are only souls (minds), and souls exist after death without the body, then the body is not a necessary part of what we are. <br /><br />If we can't detect a mind, then there mustn't be a soul, and therefore no person.<br /><br />Anyway, that's my guess of how he views things.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48604580512037724342016-12-23T00:30:32.339-07:002016-12-23T00:30:32.339-07:00BMiller: Well, like you I'd like to understand...BMiller: <i>Well, like you I'd like to understand how one can claim to be Christian and allow that abortion is acceptable.</i><br /><br />Fair enough. I'm actually a bit curious myself as to what exactly his theory of "soul" is — there was just a hint of what it might mean, but only a hint. I don't know if he has a worked-out understanding himself, but I think your point about the Incarnation hit the nail on the head: if such a system really does allow for the distinctions he wants to make (and it very well might not, properly understood!), then I doubt that it could be consistent with orthodox Christianity.<br /><br /><i>The fact that he thinks "we are souls" apparently with no material component</i><br /><br />I got the impression he wasn't denying our corporeity — in fact, my first instinct was to try to interpret it in a sort of Aristotelian sense, where souls and bodies are metaphysically distinguishable, but not actually separable in any way. (Except of course, human souls, having an intellect, are special that way, though all the worse so for his case.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30836876630887608422016-12-22T11:44:07.963-07:002016-12-22T11:44:07.963-07:00@Mr. Green,
"Really, why?"
Well, like...@Mr. Green,<br /><br />"Really, why?" <br /><br />Well, like you I'd like to understand how one can claim to be Christian and allow that abortion is acceptable.<br /><br />It seems to me that he has reached some sort of Docetist conclusion regarding Christ and the Incarnation. That's rather alarming position given 1 John 4:2-3 and I wonder if he realizes it.<br /><br />The fact that he thinks "we are souls" apparently with no material component along with his insistence that Jesus is divine when I point out the implications that he is fully human leads me to this suspicion. <br /><br />It's as if he holds that Jesus only "seems" to be human but *really* isn't.<br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73968785911795968372016-12-21T23:39:03.014-07:002016-12-21T23:39:03.014-07:00Joe Hinman: So far you failed to make a argument t...Joe Hinman: <i>So far you failed to make a argument that doesn't beg the question Your logic mostly says I know I am right so therefore I'm right."</i><br /><br />Since that would have been a valid, and in fact a sound argument, I could have made it. But it would have been pedagogically unhelpful, so I didn't. But then, against someone who doesn't understand what arguing in a circle is, there's no point continuing anyway.<br /><br /><br /><i>There's nothing new coming from the RTL bunch</i><br /><br />Well, as was pointed out, baby-killing has been forbidden by Christianity from the start, so no, definitely nothing new there. I guess the increased support from medical science is somewhat new. Ironically, Joe's bumper-sticker slogans are out-of-date themselves — it seems that abortion-supporting philosophers and their ilk have largely given up trying to defend the arbitrariness of those points and admit that there's no principled way to draw a line between conception and birth. (So they just argue that it must be all right to kill babies <i>after</i> they've been born too. It's the wave of the future!)<br /><br /><br />BMiller: <i>Wish he would have stuck around.</i><br /><br />Really, why? I mean, in a general theoretical sense, it would be good if people always wanted to pursue arguments for the sake of truth; but in practice, it is quickly apparent that a lot of these conversations are not going to go anywhere, so I think it's better not to waste a lot of time on them. Of course, it's human nature to want to jump in when one sees a bad argument (a temptation to which I am not immune myself), but it's more profitable to spend our time and effort in discussions with people who are interested in learning something — people who <i>want</i> to learn about something (even something they may disagree with) usually do, and people who don't... usually don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71771645130041308152016-12-20T19:07:40.576-07:002016-12-20T19:07:40.576-07:00Looks like Joe has left the building.
Wish he wou...Looks like Joe has left the building.<br /><br />Wish he would have stuck around.<br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57222873614358955892016-12-20T13:27:26.522-07:002016-12-20T13:27:26.522-07:00I meant "to kill or not kill the fetus"....I meant "to kill or not kill the fetus". Apologies, my auto-spell always thinks it knows what I mean :)bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35993534354312396032016-12-20T13:21:35.808-07:002016-12-20T13:21:35.808-07:00Joe: " I define consciousness qs self awaren...<br />Joe: " I define consciousness qs self awareness and being awake being able to observe and learn, that puts any fetus at a low level of consciousnesses."<br />Me: Are all four of your criteria required for consciousness to exist? You do know that newborn babies probably have minimal or no self awareness. 'Scientific American' stated as such in an article a few years ago.<br /> How did you arrive at this definition of consciousness? I have seem many others: ability to feel pain, a certain brain wave state, self recognition, certain degree of cortical function? Whose definition are you using? Are these your personal feelings/views or do you subscribe to a certain school or academic researcher?<br /><br />Joe: "I already said I define autonomy as viability that is the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother;s womb, from the medical evidence I've read that usually isn't possible before the third trimester."<br />Me: Viability outside the womb is possible now down to around 22 weeks, and getting earlier it seems with time. Why should viability, though, be the point at which it is acceptable to kill ornate kill the fetus? A newborn is breathing, but completely helpless without total care. Just as a fetus in the womb will die without nourishment, so with a baby. Why are we privileging the baby just because it is outside the womb?<br /> Since your two criteria for making it ethical to destroy the fetus may be at very different times in the life of the baby, do you choose the earlier or the later criteria (of "autonomy' or 'consciousness' as you define these)? It would strike me as quite coincidental or suspicious if, using your definitions, these two criteria fall at the same time. Yet getting these points precise are beyond critical for the life or death of the baby.<br /><br /> I need to read Steve Lovell's comments, but will have to get to them later. Gotta run......bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4557193884479502192016-12-20T13:19:30.365-07:002016-12-20T13:19:30.365-07:00Joe said: "... In my view the fetus is beco...<br /> Joe said: "... In my view the fetus is becoming a soul and is not one until it is viable autonomously apart from the womb"<br /> Me: So, I assume that a baby who is not viable until it is self-sufficient and independent does not have a soul? Can the baby (or child) be killed up to this point? Does anyone else, other perhaps than professor Singer share this view?<br /><br />Joe: ".... how many times did i say we don;t have soul we are souls?"<br /> Me: It seems that this statement resolves with some finality the concern that at the point of conception, the new creation is or has a soul. Can you explain this phrase so I can understand a little better what you mean by it? And please excuse my ignorance - I assume it came from Charles Taylor or someone you read.<br /><br />Joe: "....you do not have a single Bible verse that says it, the only verses you have must be interpreted and read them with the assumption of begged the question. your reasoning is totally circular."<br />Me: "I knew you in the womb" seems fairly straightforward. There are other verses that indicate that a human is ensouled and endowed with dignity as God's creation at conception. I can find these when I have some time (at work now).<br /><br />Joe: "...just like an athyeist you din't really read what i say".. what in the hell are you talking about?"..."get through your igniter little head ..."<br />Me: This is belittling and do not help the argument very much.<br /><br />Joe: "... you have not actually given a reason why we should assume person hood begins at conception. I have given several reasons why PERSON HOOD MUST BE EQUATED WITH CONSCIOUSNESS."<br />Me: Not really. I have seen a number of decent arguments here for valued personhood beginning at conception. Joe, you have made many statements, but they seem like catchphrases from academic journals. Without stating your arguments with common language and clarity, they carry almost no weight, because they are so vague and open to so many possible interpretations.<br /><br />Joe: "....the closer we get into the third trimester the more likely it [consciousness] is to have happened. <br />Me: Is it OK to destroy the fetus then, prior to the third trimester? If it varies from one baby to another, how should we determine who can be killed and who cannot? <br /><br />bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80176399984524124002016-12-20T11:59:52.921-07:002016-12-20T11:59:52.921-07:00Pro choice ideology can only survive behind carefu...Pro choice ideology can only survive behind carefully controlled terminology and arbitrary definitions. Remove that and it's obvious there are no facts behind it. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38153048627790610282016-12-20T09:22:36.583-07:002016-12-20T09:22:36.583-07:00Hi Joe,
On the terminology "Baby" vs &q...Hi Joe,<br /><br />On the terminology "Baby" vs "Fetus", I said what I did only in response to your comments. You wrote: <i>"Baby" is a term we use for a born young humans, it's not a baby until it is born.</i><br /><br />I was taking issue with that. But as I say, it's not exactly the weightiest of issues in this area. However, if the pro-life position is correct and all or most of the abortions which have taken place are in fact murders, then "fetus" will turn out to have been one of the most ugly, euphemistic uses of language of all time. We won't settle the debate by discussing the words, and I wouldn't expect us to, but it's easy to hide behind words, and I think it's useful to be aware of that.<br /><br />Moving on ...<br /><br /><br />I didn't say the concept of viability was relative, I said it was "vague" (in that it comes in degrees). There is a difference.<br /><br />Clearly if we wanted to enshrine something like your approach in law, we'd need to do something about that vagueness. We'd want to draw a line sufficiently near conception that no fetus at earlier stage of development could possibily be a person, and then say "no abortions beyond that point". But I don't see how that line can be meaningfully be drawn at any point after conception except out of "convenience" for those who want abortions.<br /><br />You write: <i>"Obviously you can't just sit around being viable you have to feed yourself and you have to be trained to do things like walk".</i><br /><br />But at birth we can't do these things, and yet you are saying we are viable at that point. Rather at birth one is fed and generally looked after by someone else. Why is that any different before the third trimester?<br /><br />Please don't say it's because if a such "fetus" were extracted from the womb and left to their own devices then they wouldn't survive. Clearly that's also true during the third trimester and indeed after the child is born.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55646012605966164662016-12-20T08:55:03.592-07:002016-12-20T08:55:03.592-07:00@Joe Hinman,
"that doesn't follow. you j...@Joe Hinman,<br /><br />"that doesn't follow. you just jettison the divine when you need him to exemplify humanity, unless you know a bunch of kids thiat walk on water,"<br /><br />I believe that Christ had 2 natures:Human and Divine, both in the same person.<br />This is the historic formula for Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.<br /><br />So no, I have not jettisoned the Divine, nor have I jettisoned the Humanity.<br /><br />I wonder if you do not think Jesus ever soiled His swaddling cloth, that there was a time that he couldn't talk, walk or feed himself. A time when he was not "autonomous" in your opinion. Those are all part of human nature.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12445702950928980932016-12-20T07:50:36.601-07:002016-12-20T07:50:36.601-07:00ok if that was your best shot it failed. There'...ok if that was your best shot it failed. There's nothing new coming from the RTL bunch I'm gonna split, I'll be back when there are atheists to bash.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54893728251241936852016-12-20T07:49:25.787-07:002016-12-20T07:49:25.787-07:00Women who have miscarriages "lose a baby"...Women who have miscarriages "lose a baby" not merely a "fetus". Ask a woman who's had a miscarriage or feared that she was having one. Anyway, that's not an especially deep point, so let's move on ...<br /><br /><b>all that proves is my original point that the terms are linked to the over all assumptions they don't prove anything. It's the negation of potential that is lamented in miscarriage. I know women who had miscarriages an did not funerals</b><br /><br /><br />Presumably I was still viable back then. Just before I came out of the womb, my mother was doing these things for me in rather different ways, I was fed through a tube to my tummy (that time may come again). I was presumably viable then too. <br /><br /><b>If that is supposed to prove that the retaliative nature of viability means it's a false concept it doesn't prove that. Obviously you can't just sit around being viable you have to feed yourself and you have to be trained to do things like walk. That does not mean that a newly fertilized zygote is mjust as viable as third trimester fetus.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28266628829582717412016-12-20T04:44:58.098-07:002016-12-20T04:44:58.098-07:00So is the unborn "fetus" a person? Do th...So is the unborn "fetus" a person? Do they have any moral standing, and if so from when?<br /><br />Clearly, I'm not going to settle that issue decisively in a short (or even a long) comment here. Joe's interlocuters have been arguing that life, and therefore moral standing, begins at conception.<br /><br />The difficulty with saying anything else is that it starts to seem arbitrary where the line is drawn. Famously some people have tried to draw that line well after birth.<br /><br />Arguably, both the criteria that Joe offers, consciousness and "independance" come by degrees. As such, the borderline between having and not having moral status becomes a fuzzy one susceptible to vagueness. That alone will make some people blanche, but I'm particuarly concerned with it in relation to independance.<br /><br />In response to William Brown, Joe wrote that he defines "autonomy as viability, that is the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother's womb." As a philosopher, I'd like to pin this down. As you probably guessed, I'm outside of my mother's womb. Nevertheless, the latest medical research suggests that at some stage I'm going to die. Presumably, despite that, I still count as viable. But for how long? Indeed, suppose you take away the trappings of culture and society and leave me to my own devices, how long would I survive? I might last a while, but I'd be a rubbish subsistence farmer. Perhaps I'd have a few years in me. As an infant, I'd have stood no chance, I couldn't feed myself, move myself out of the way of danger or anything of the sort. Presumably I was still viable back then. Just before I came out of the womb, my mother was doing these things for me in rather different ways, I was fed through a tube to my tummy (that time may come again). I was presumably viable then too. At each stage, I needed the support of others which is proper to a human at that stage of development. At each stage if you remove that support, I'm going to suffer and before too long I'll die ... I just last longer with the support. I think I was "viable" at every stage. I was always able to live outside the womb, but I needed some help to get there, and help after that too. Add advances in technology to this picture, and you'll find that with "support" fetuses are able to survive outside the womb ever earlier, perhaps even from the very beginning.<br /><br />I've been typing a while, it's time to do other things. I may come back to the "consciousness" criterion later.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16338280625324837252016-12-20T04:16:59.617-07:002016-12-20T04:16:59.617-07:00Back to fingernails (I need to clip mine).
Clearl...Back to fingernails (I need to clip mine).<br /><br />Clearly there is a difference between cutting off one's leg and clipping one's finger nails. In general the leg is wanted and the excess length of fingernail is not. The aborted "fetus" is (assumed to be) similarly unwanted. Both are made from human genetic material. Joe thinks this makes aborting a "fetus" similar to clipping one's nails. Now since my points about body ownership don't do anything to bring the legitimacy of nailclipping into doubt, without some additional machinery they also aren't going to bring into doubt the legitimacy of aborting a "fetus". Or are they? I think the extra machinery doesn't need to be very heavy. Firstly, while fingernails are made from human genetic material, they are dead. That's not the case for the "fetus". Moreover, one may ask whether <i>anyone</i> wants the fingernails. No-one rational would want them. That doesn't seem to be the case for the "fetus". One may also sensibly raise questions of the proper function of various natural processes and whether there is a difference between abortion and nail-clipping on those grounds. I think there clearly is. Anyway, leaving those points aside, the bigger issue again simply whether or not the "fetus" has any moral status as this stage. Fingernails don't.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16232223657447525392016-12-20T04:16:25.056-07:002016-12-20T04:16:25.056-07:00For the record, while I think Joe is wrong here, I...For the record, while I think Joe is wrong here, I don't think he's saying anything philosophically crazy.<br /><br />Before I say anything else, I'd like to say something about the use of the words "fetus" and "baby". Clearly, people who want to argue for pro-choice positions are not going to talk about "aborting babies", while people who argue for pro-life positions will describe abortion in those terms. Joe has said we only use the word "baby" once the child is born. I don't think that's the case at all. Women who have miscarriages "lose a baby" not merely a "fetus". Ask a woman who's had a miscarriage or feared that she was having one. Anyway, that's not an especially deep point, so let's move on ...<br /><br />My earlier comments were aimed at showing the argument from the woman's right to do what she wants with her own body are not successful in demonstrating the moral permissibility of abortion. now I've got a bit more time on my hands, let me unpack those comments a little. // Arguing from the woman's right to do what she wants with her own body to the permissibility of abortion makes several assumptions. The first assumption seems to be that the woman "owns her body" in such a way that she may do with it as she pleases. But, even for clear cases of ownership this isn't obviously the case. If I own a shiny new Ferrari, do I have the right to smash it to pieces? I don't think so. If I don't want it any more, then why not sell it and give the money to charity? I can't be obligated to do the latter, but surely if it's a choice between one and the other it's pretty clear what I should do. "It's mine" is not a good enough justification. And that's for clear cases of "ownership" and our relationship to our bodies is certainly not so clear. The didn't earn our bodies, we cannot separate ourselves from them (at least not entirely, and at least not in this life). Why should we be permitted to destroy something that's part of our body? This is why I asked whether we have the right to chop off one of our own feet. This is where the comments about fingernails seem most relevant, and I'll come back to that later (see next post). <br /><br />Now VR's original post was about the "village in your left arm". Even if we disregard the points above, and say that the woman's right to do with her body as she pleases is unproblematic, it surely only follows that she can abort the "fetus" if in doing so no one else is hurt. One cannot even reach that conclusion if one grants that the "fetus" is part of the woman's body since as the case of siamese twins shows, something being part of one person's body does not entail that it isn't also part (or all) of another person's body. So, again assuming the body "ownership" issue to be resolved, the argument will only work if we assume the "fetus" isn't a person (or whatever the relevant moral category is here). And as this thread clearly shows, that's a matter of contention. In sum, the argument from the woman's right to do what she likes with her body relies on too many other controversial assumptions to be given any independent weight.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17196526559091916742016-12-19T23:41:55.526-07:002016-12-19T23:41:55.526-07:00Joe, after you answer Mr. Green, can you tell me w...Joe, after you answer Mr. Green, can you tell me when you think a fetus becomes conscious? How are you defining consciousness? This would have to be crucial for you with regard to the ethics of abortion, since you use that (and autonomy) to define when the fetus should be allowed to live. <br /><br /><b>you did not read the first part of the thread did you? I said we don't know when it happens probably veries by individual but we can be sure that the closer we get into the third trimester the more likley it is to have happened, The close yu go back to fertilization the safer the assumption that it has not. I define consciousness qs self awareness and being awake being able to observe and learn, that puts any fetus at a low level of consciousnesses.</b><br /><br />Also, how do you define autonomy, and at what time in the intrapartum course does the fetus acquire this property? Is this at the same time as the fetus becomes conscious?<br /><br /><b>I already said I define autonomy as viability that is the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother;s womb, from the medical evidence I've read that usually isn't possible before the third trimester.<br /><br />I have heard of rare cases where the fetus was surviving outside the womb before it what thought able to, go back to the first part of the thread I said i do not see abortion as a good choice, i think it's wrong to negate the process but it's not murder,if, and only if, the guidelines are followed.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69007501530337941312016-12-19T23:31:36.543-07:002016-12-19T23:31:36.543-07:00Green
You, on the other hand, are insisting the h...Green<br /><br />You, on the other hand, are insisting the human being — or rather, the human-but-not-yet-human being — begins life bodily at conception, but then at some secret point suddenly gains a soul (or mind, or spirit). For the soul to come and go like this, like a captain boarding or disembarking his ship, is precisely what the "ghost in the machine" metaphor is mocking.<br /><br /><b>just like an athyeist you din't really read what i say do you? how many times did i say we don;t have soul we are souls? The over all life is the soul, not a ghost in the machine</b><br /><br />Sure, you can always make up a story in which God pulls some miraculous jiggery-pokery to get an ensouled body in place at some point after conception — just like He could, say, cause everyone to perceive a miraculous vision of "Joe Hinman" even though no such person exists... and thus argue that it's fine and dandy to kill you because you aren't "really" a person.<br /><br /><b>what in the hell are you talking about?</b><br /><br /><br /> It's "possible"; but wrong. Everything from common sense on up to our most detailed biological expertise indicates that you are a person, and the same person you've been ever since you were conceived.<br /><br /><b>So far you failed to make a argument that doesn't beg the question Your logic mostly says I know I am right so therefore I'm right." you do not have a single Bible verse that says it, tye only verses you have must be interpreted and read them with the assumption of begged the question. your reasoning is totally circular.</b><br /><br /><br /> Anything else is a supernatural conspiracy-theory — as supported by your own lack of any argument as to how or when the soul/mind/spirit makes its entrance. Even if the possibility you insist on were reasonable, you can't give any definitive argument or deadline when it's safe to kill the "unbaby", and so morally you are bound to take the morally safer course, just as if you saw a movement in the woods or dark shape crossing the road.<br /><br /><br /><b>get through your igniter little head you are assuming that because you must be right you are, that is not proof genius, you have not actually given a reason why we should assume person hood begins at conception. I have given several reasons why PERSON HOOD MUST BE EQUATED WITH CONSCIOUSNESS.<br /><br />you can't follow an argument in a straight line, I think probably your fundamentalist assumptions are telling you if you are not right you will go to hell so you must be right no ount or reasoning will ever get though yiour fear of hell,<br /><br />you don't seem to have a concept what an argument is,,</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59442001909108837132016-12-19T23:17:59.304-07:002016-12-19T23:17:59.304-07:00Joe Hinman: That assumes ghost in the machine, I d...Joe Hinman: That assumes ghost in the machine, I don't believe that a soul is a ghost in the machine<br /><br />This baffles me, because you're the one who is taking the ghost-in-machine position. The rest of us are arguing that each and every human is an integrated being: there is a definite, observable discontinuity at conception, when a new and unique life-form comes into being, and thenceforth develops gradually with no more discontinuities (until death!); the soul is either always present (i.e. it is in fact a human being) or not at all — there is no such thing as "half" a human being, a body without a soul, or a soul without a body (again, at least until death).<br /><br /><b>no the position that equates fertilized egg with person assures essentially of the soul The idea of a literal ghostly entity in the body called the soul, otherwise you could understand the soul as developing as part of consciousness. In my view the fetus is becoming a soul and is not one until it is viable autonomously apart from the womb,</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55363211268343945992016-12-19T23:10:46.102-07:002016-12-19T23:10:46.102-07:00"all fetuses are not the incarnate logos"...<br />"all fetuses are not the incarnate logos"<br /><br />But the incarnate logos is humanly the same as all human fetuses otherwise the second person of the Trinity is not human.<br /><br /><b>that doesn't follow. you just jettison the divine when you need him to exemplify humanity, unless you know a bunch of kids thiat walk on water,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43690131422923873742016-12-19T17:33:48.251-07:002016-12-19T17:33:48.251-07:00 Joe, after you answer Mr. Green, can you tell me... Joe, after you answer Mr. Green, can you tell me when you think a fetus becomes conscious? How are you defining consciousness? This would have to be crucial for you with regard to the ethics of abortion, since you use that (and autonomy) to define when the fetus should be allowed to live. <br /><br /> Also, how do you define autonomy, and at what time in the intrapartum course does the fetus acquire this property? Is this at the same time as the fetus becomes conscious?<br /><br /> Thanks.bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45743365193057330332016-12-19T17:10:14.915-07:002016-12-19T17:10:14.915-07:00Joe Hinman: That assumes ghost in the machine, I d...Joe Hinman: <i>That assumes ghost in the machine, I don't believe that a soul is a ghost in the machine</i><br /><br />This baffles me, because <i>you're</i> the one who is taking the ghost-in-machine position. The rest of us are arguing that each and every human is an integrated being: there is a definite, observable discontinuity at conception, when a new and unique life-form comes into being, and thenceforth develops gradually with no more discontinuities (until death!); the soul is either always present (i.e. it is in fact a human being) or not at all — there is no such thing as "half" a human being, a body without a soul, or a soul without a body (again, at least until death).<br /><br />You, on the other hand, are insisting the human being — or rather, the human-but-not-yet-human being — begins life bodily at conception, but then at some secret point suddenly gains a soul (or mind, or spirit). For the soul to come and go like this, like a captain boarding or disembarking his ship, is precisely what the "ghost in the machine" metaphor is mocking.<br /><br />Sure, you can always make up a story in which God pulls some miraculous jiggery-pokery to get an ensouled body in place at some point after conception — just like He could, say, cause everyone to perceive a miraculous vision of "Joe Hinman" even though no such person exists... and thus argue that it's fine and dandy to kill you because you aren't "really" a person. It's "possible"; but wrong. Everything from common sense on up to our most detailed biological expertise indicates that you are a person, and the same person you've been ever since you were conceived. Anything else is a supernatural conspiracy-theory — as supported by your own lack of any argument as to how or when the soul/mind/spirit makes its entrance. Even if the possibility you insist on were <b>reasonable</b>, <i>you</i> can't give any definitive argument or deadline when it's safe to kill the "unbaby", and so morally you are bound to take the morally safer course, just as if you saw a movement in the woods or dark shape crossing the road.<br /><br /><i>the thing that lives on after death the core self is spirit.</i><br /><br />If the soul is a metaphor for life, then there can be no soul after death; so for human beings, it has to be something more than that. Indeed, the soul is the mind-as-principle-of-life for a human body, not as some separate "thing" that inhabits the body, but just the living-embodied-rational-being. Because the mind is immaterial, it can survive death, and so we can say that our soul survives death (but in a highly crippled state, since its whole body has been amputated! — which is why God will resurrect us; the intellect/soul is incomplete, and not a whole human being without a body).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51790097964041419132016-12-19T11:06:50.562-07:002016-12-19T11:06:50.562-07:00@Joe Hinman,
"all fetuses are not the incarn...@Joe Hinman,<br /><br />"all fetuses are not the incarnate logos"<br /><br />But the incarnate logos is humanly the same as all human fetuses otherwise the second person of the Trinity is not human.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35251680805370909932016-12-19T09:55:17.640-07:002016-12-19T09:55:17.640-07:00You missed what I was getting at. The entire reaso...You missed what I was getting at. The entire reason I've brought up the Incarnation has nothing to do with John the Baptist, but with Jesus. It is evident that Mary visited Elizabeth immediately after the conception of Jesus and stayed till John was born according to the timeline in Luke's Gospel. This is relevant because:<br /><br />The Holy Spirit inspired Elizabeth to exclaim this immediately upon Mary's arrival:<br />"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! <br />[43] And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? "<br /><br />Jesus was not "autonomous" according to your definition, yet the Holy Spirit indicated that Mary was the mother of someone<br />and that someone was the Savior, also known as the second person of the Trinity. <br /><br />If the second person of the Trinity had not been present and someone wants to interpret the exclamation as inconclusive, then they would have to explain why John the Baptist "leaped" in Elizabeth's womb at the presence of the Savior.<br /><br />December 19, 2016 9:08 AM<br /><br /><b>all fetuses are not the incarnate logos</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78405357785983608892016-12-19T09:08:41.925-07:002016-12-19T09:08:41.925-07:00@Joe Hinman,
"According to the "autonom...@Joe Hinman,<br /><br />"According to the "autonomous person" theory, what Elizabeth proclaimed makes no sense, at least to me."<br /><br />"she said she flt the fetus respond to a stemulus that is not a proof that all fetuses are conscious and viable from conception ,Her fetus was already in the third trimester,"<br /><br />Joe, <br /><br />You missed what I was getting at. The entire reason I've brought up the Incarnation has nothing to do with John the Baptist, but with Jesus. It is evident that Mary visited Elizabeth immediately after the conception of Jesus and stayed till John was born according to the timeline in Luke's Gospel. This is relevant because:<br /><br />The Holy Spirit inspired Elizabeth to exclaim this immediately upon Mary's arrival:<br />"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! <br />[43] And why is this granted me, that the <b>mother</b> of <b>my Lord</b> should come to me? "<br /><br />Jesus was not "autonomous" according to your definition, yet the Holy Spirit indicated that Mary was the mother of someone<br />and that someone was the Savior, also known as the second person of the Trinity. <br /><br />If the second person of the Trinity had not been present and someone wants to interpret the exclamation as inconclusive, then they would have to explain why John the Baptist "leaped" in Elizabeth's womb at the presence of the Savior.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.com