Evidence for God from Science

Here it is (slightly censored version)...

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:40 pm

Nils: When it looks like an adult (as you seem to suggest)...

No, Nils, I affirm human life begins at the moment it becomes ALIVE. And ONLY "if" God gives and is the only one with the right to assert life in the womb is human and that NO human life (in or outside the womb) it is to be deliberately taken, unless defensively or in war, does it matter.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

The rest is all personal opinion and based upon arbitrary definitions and whatever one thinks is appropriate.

Yes, as an atheist that, together with reasoning, is all that is available.

However, even from a logic-based argument, I see massive hypocrisy in the reasoning of the pro-abortion arguments.

How and why?
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:52 am

The rest is all personal opinion and based upon arbitrary definitions and whatever one thinks is appropriate.

Yes, as an atheist that, together with reasoning, is all that is available.

The massive problem you have is that reason necessarily leads to both a pro life stance (from the proper metaphysical understanding of natural law), and theism (from the myriad metaphysical arguments for the existence of God). You may claim you disagree, I just haven't seen you offer a non-arbitrary reason for doing so.

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:50 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:52 am

The rest is all personal opinion and based upon arbitrary definitions and whatever one thinks is appropriate.

Yes, as an atheist that, together with reasoning, is all that is available.

The massive problem you have is that reason necessarily leads to both a pro life stance (from the proper metaphysical understanding of natural law), and theism (from the myriad metaphysical arguments for the existence of God). You may claim you disagree, I just haven't seen you offer a non-arbitrary reason for doing so.

The problem with your argument is your use or ‘non-arbitrary’. I think it is arbitrary. I think there are some (not a myriad) metaphysical arguments for atheism and a myriad empirical arguments. We discussed the Principle of sufficient reason in another thread but you didn’t want to continue. Concerning the natural law in Aquinas version it has the same weakness as all ‘proofs’. Some presumptions are given and a conclusion is derived. Maybe logically correct but everything depends on the presumptions.

How to use the secular version of natural law for pro-life, I don’t know.
Nils

Science defines life as:
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

That is why, when NASA looks for life on another planet, even a single celled organism is a sign of life.

In short, life begins at conception and a termination of life is called what?

Murder, if it is premeditated.

Definition of murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


So, what abortions laws do is make the killing/murder of another human life legal.

Now, one can argue that the killing of one life to say another is legal and that would be true, in the case of self-defense.
Which would only be applicable when the human life inside a woman was a danger to the life of the woman.
Granted.

So, what we would have is CONDITIONAL killing of one life to save another.
Granted.

When is it justifiable, by law, to kill a human because they may be a financial burden?
It is NOT.
When is it justified, by law, to kill a human because their existence was not planned?
It is NOT.
When is it justifiable, by law, to kill a human because we choose to?
It is NOT.

Except for abortion, except for a defenseless, innocent life.

How is this ok?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:03 am Science defines life as:
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

That is why, when NASA looks for life on another planet, even a single celled organism is a sign of life.

In short, life begins at conception and a termination of life is called what?

Murder, if it is premeditated.

Definition of murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

That's your definition, I know.

So, what abortions laws do is make the killing/murder of another human life legal.

Now, one can argue that the killing of one life to say another is legal and that would be true, in the case of self-defense.
Which would only be applicable when the human life inside a woman was a danger to the life of the woman.
Granted.

So, what we would have is CONDITIONAL killing of one life to save another.
Granted.

When is it justifiable, by law, to kill a human because they may be a financial burden?
It is NOT.
When is it justified, by law, to kill a human because their existence was not planned?
It is NOT.
When is it justifiable, by law, to kill a human because we choose to?
It is NOT.

Except for abortion, except for a defenseless, innocent life.

How is this ok?

Gary Whittenberger has written an excellent article Personhood and Abortion rights: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/ho ... 6b1dddf3b5

He argues that what should count is personhood and consciousness and defines. “a human organism is not a person when it has never before or will never again possess the capacity for consciousness.” He also argues that consciousness occurs between week 25 and 30 and therefore personhood should be said to start at week 25. So abortion should be allowed up to week 25 and not later. I fully agree even if the Swedish law asking for special permit after week 18 may be useful. Using his definition of a person I say that killing a human organism that isn’t a person is not murder.

If I have to choose between a system according to Whittenberger allowing abortion up to week 25 and a system according to you where abortion is totally prohibited I find the former much better. What is the benefit of prohibiting abortion? The only reason is to fulfill some dubious and arbitrary principle. Few will be better off. On the other hand is abortion is prohibited much suffering will be generated, to the mothers and families that are forced to have a baby that they don’t want and to the individuals that will be born unwanted.

I know a woman who together with her husband had decided to have two children. When she was pregnant the second time she was told after a prenatal test, in the 13th week I think, that there was a 30% risk that the fetus had Downs syndrome. She and her husband decided to abort. Six months later she was pregnant again and had a lovely daughter that everybody adores. My wife, that know her well, several years later cautiously asked if she ever thinks about the abortion. The woman answered no, why would I, I’m so happy with my daughter, I made the right decision.

In which way would the world have been better if she had been forbidden to abort?

Nils

Nils wrote:


I know a woman who together with her husband had decided to have two children. When she was pregnant the second time she was told after a prenatal test, in the 13th week I think, that there was a 30% risk that the fetus had Downs syndrome. She and her husband decided to abort. Six months later she was pregnant again and had a lovely daughter that everybody adores. My wife, that know her well, several years later cautiously asked if she ever thinks about the abortion. The woman answered no, why would I, I’m so happy with my daughter, I made the right decision.

In which way would the world have been better if she had been forbidden to abort?

Nils

You are seriously trying to justify killing an unborn baby, because he/she may have had Downs Syndrome?

In which way would the world have been better, if an innocent human life would not have been killed?

This is insane!

Nils: What is the benefit of prohibiting abortion? The only reason is to fulfill some dubious and arbitrary principle.

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:04 pm

Nils wrote:


I know a woman who together with her husband had decided to have two children. When she was pregnant the second time she was told after a prenatal test, in the 13th week I think, that there was a 30% risk that the fetus had Downs syndrome. She and her husband decided to abort. Six months later she was pregnant again and had a lovely daughter that everybody adores. My wife, that know her well, several years later cautiously asked if she ever thinks about the abortion. The woman answered no, why would I, I’m so happy with my daughter, I made the right decision.

In which way would the world have been better if she had been forbidden to abort?

Nils

You are seriously trying to justify killing an unborn baby, because he/she may have had Downs Syndrome?

Your writing is tendentious, it’s about a young fetus that never has been close to consciousness. A fetus that have few human properties even if it may look like a small baby.

In which way would the world have been better, if an innocent human life would not have been killed?

In this case and in many (most?) cases it is not a question about whether a (potential) person will live or not, it is a question about which person will live. Do you think that it is better that a person with big difficulties is born than that a healthy person is born? Do you think that the woman I mentioned was acting wrongly?

The world will certainly be a better place if there are only children that are wanted.

This is insane!

So you think that all those persons that are pro abortion are insane. Please argue.
Nils

Nils wrote:


I know a woman who together with her husband had decided to have two children. When she was pregnant the second time she was told after a prenatal test, in the 13th week I think, that there was a 30% risk that the fetus had Downs syndrome. She and her husband decided to abort. Six months later she was pregnant again and had a lovely daughter that everybody adores. My wife, that know her well, several years later cautiously asked if she ever thinks about the abortion. The woman answered no, why would I, I’m so happy with my daughter, I made the right decision.

In which way would the world have been better if she had been forbidden to abort?

Nils

RickD wrote:
You are seriously trying to justify killing an unborn baby, because he/she may have had Downs Syndrome?

Nils wrote:
Your writing is tendentious, it’s about a young fetus that never has been close to consciousness. A fetus that have few human properties even if it may look like a small baby.

Your story is about a woman that chose to kill her unborn baby, just because a doctor told her that there was a 30% chance that the baby would have Downs Syndrome. We have gotten to the point that we want to kill our own children, simply because they are considered an inconvenience.

Nils wrote:
In this case and in many (most?) cases it is not a question about whether a (potential) person will live or not, it is a question about which person will live. Do you think that it is better that a person with big difficulties is born than that a healthy person is born? Do you think that the woman I mentioned was acting wrongly?

The world will certainly be a better place if there are only children that are wanted.

Nils,
It's always better for a human to be born, than to be killed.

FYI,

If you do some homework, you'll see that there are many people who are waiting to adopt, children. So, some of those who you consider worthless and unwanted, ARE WANTED. But they never get the chance at life, and the chance to be loved, simply because it's fine to kill them if they cause an inconvenience.

And yes, if the story is accurate, the woman acted wrong. She figured that if her baby had Downs Syndrome, it would be a burden for her. So she just had the baby killed. Yes, that's wrong.

Nils wrote:
So you think that all those persons that are pro abortion are insane. Please argue.

No, that's not what I said. It's insane that as a society, we kill our children because they are an inconvenience in our lives. It's insane that our most innocent and vulnerable are deemed without worth, so the best thing to do, is just kill them. It's insane that any rational person would argue that it's not wrong to kill an innocent human being.

It appears that Nils suffers from a disconnect - because Nils the man is the very same human as was Nils the baby at one month in his mother's womb. If his mom had aborted him, no NILS. And speaking of an arbitrary assignment of personhood - so now Nils was only human when he began to develop consciousness. And when one realizes his arguments why a costly, inconvenient, unborn baby would be better aborted - really, you could (and many would) easily apply his reasoning to a elderly parent with dementia or some medical condition that has rendered them helpless. So, that same mentality logically will lead many to consider euthanasia of the very old and infirm to be equally moral and justified.

That's your definition, I know.

Nope, dictionary.com and pretty much every other dictionary.

Gary Whittenberger has written an excellent article Personhood and Abortion rights: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/ho ... 6b1dddf3b5

He argues that what should count is personhood and consciousness and defines. “a human organism is not a person when it has never before or will never again possess the capacity for consciousness.” He also argues that consciousness occurs between week 25 and 30 and therefore personhood should be said to start at week 25. So abortion should be allowed up to week 25 and not later. I fully agree even if the Swedish law asking for special permit after week 18 may be useful. Using his definition of a person I say that killing a human organism that isn’t a person is not murder.

If I have to choose between a system according to Whittenberger allowing abortion up to week 25 and a system according to you where abortion is totally prohibited I find the former much better. What is the benefit of prohibiting abortion? The only reason is to fulfill some dubious and arbitrary principle. Few will be better off. On the other hand is abortion is prohibited much suffering will be generated, to the mothers and families that are forced to have a baby that they don’t want and to the individuals that will be born unwanted.

I know a woman who together with her husband had decided to have two children. When she was pregnant the second time she was told after a prenatal test, in the 13th week I think, that there was a 30% risk that the fetus had Downs syndrome. She and her husband decided to abort. Six months later she was pregnant again and had a lovely daughter that everybody adores. My wife, that know her well, several years later cautiously asked if she ever thinks about the abortion. The woman answered no, why would I, I’m so happy with my daughter, I made the right decision.

In which way would the world have been better if she had been forbidden to abort?

Nils

Ah, subjectivity and the slippery slope to which it leads.
Good luck with that.

You should be careful and trying to justify the taking of a life with someone that is a trained killer.
Things may not work well for society if people that know how to kill all of a sudden develop a "subjective understanding of the value of life".


as for the abortion of people of down syndrome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... n_syndrome
https://historyplex.com/famous-people-w ... n-syndrome

One wonders...

I always worry when people don't seem to understand what can happen when we put conditions on the value of life.
Only if a person is conscious? or some subjective view of "personhood" ?
A life only has value IF it is independent? only has value if it is cognitive? Only has value if fully developed?
That a condition of life, of value of life, is dependent on expediency? on comfort? on the ease of raising a child? on the finance?

Sure, these are concerns to address BEFORE you decide to play hide-the-salami for fun. They open up a horrific can of worms when used to judge value of life.

How do people choose NOT to see this ??

Life either has value or it doesn't.

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:46 am

Nils wrote:


I know a woman who together with her husband had decided to have two children. When she was pregnant the second time she was told after a prenatal test, in the 13th week I think, that there was a 30% risk that the fetus had Downs syndrome. She and her husband decided to abort. Six months later she was pregnant again and had a lovely daughter that everybody adores. My wife, that know her well, several years later cautiously asked if she ever thinks about the abortion. The woman answered no, why would I, I’m so happy with my daughter, I made the right decision.

In which way would the world have been better if she had been forbidden to abort?

Nils

RickD wrote:
You are seriously trying to justify killing an unborn baby, because he/she may have had Downs Syndrome?

Nils wrote:
Your writing is tendentious, it’s about a young fetus that never has been close to consciousness. A fetus that have few human properties even if it may look like a small baby.

Your story is about a woman that chose to kill her unborn baby, just because a doctor told her that there was a 30% chance that the baby would have Downs Syndrome. We have gotten to the point that we want to kill our own children, simply because they are considered an inconvenience.

Nils wrote:
In this case and in many (most?) cases it is not a question about whether a (potential) person will live or not, it is a question about which person will live. Do you think that it is better that a person with big difficulties is born than that a healthy person is born? Do you think that the woman I mentioned was acting wrongly?

The world will certainly be a better place if there are only children that are wanted.

Nils,
It's always better for a human to be born, than to be killed.

FYI,

If you do some homework, you'll see that there are many people who are waiting to adopt, children. So, some of those who you consider worthless and unwanted, ARE WANTED. But they never get the chance at life, and the chance to be loved, simply because it's fine to kill them if they cause an inconvenience.

And yes, if the story is accurate, the woman acted wrong. She figured that if her baby had Downs Syndrome, it would be a burden for her. So she just had the baby killed. Yes, that's wrong.

Nils wrote:
So you think that all those persons that are pro abortion are insane. Please argue.

No, that's not what I said. It's insane that as a society, we kill our children because they are an inconvenience in our lives. It's insane that our most innocent and vulnerable are deemed without worth, so the best thing to do, is just kill them. It's insane that any rational person would argue that it's not wrong to kill an innocent human being.

I said above: “Your writing is tendentious, it’s about a young fetus that never has been close to consciousness. A fetus that have few human properties even if it may look like a small baby.”
You didn’t comment that but continue talking about killing children and babies. When you talk about a baby and certainly children you generally don’t think of 10 – 18 week old fetuses. Some may call these fetuses babies and children but what you associate to when someone talks about killing children, generally, is not killing young fetuses. Those fetuses are potential babies and children and have less cognitive capacities than small animals. They have no feelings, no memories and certainly are not mentally affected in any way.

You say that it the woman acted wrong. (Yes, the story is completely true, I can send your more information privately if you want). I ask you why. If you met the woman now would you say that she should have chosen to let the aborted fetus live instead of having her daughter. Probably not, that would be absurd. She knows and loves her daughter and the thought not having her would be unbearable. Now, you may say that the question is what she should have done when deciding to abort the fetus. But the situation is similar. She had a choice, either she could keep the fetus that would develop to a child that presumable she would love even if it had some defects, or she could abort the fetus and get another child that she presumable would love. Now she choose the latter alternative because of the stress a disabled baby would inflict on her family. Why is the choice wrong, why prefer the first potential child before the second.
Nils