Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[stevil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307239212' post='2250064']
I'm curious...you were an atheist?
[/quote]
Everyone who has ever been in existence, all people, all living creatures, all inanimate objects have been atheists at some point.
When a person is born they have no understanding of anything, and hence no belief in gods. To believe in gods one must be taught.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307249186' post='2250090']
On a similar note it has always been something of a wonder to me why atheists seek out the company of Christians, why do they join Catholic/Christian community websites? Based on my past I believe it is because either they want validation of their beliefs because they deep down question the non-existence of God. Or two they perhaps in their inner most being, their sub conscience, long for God, long to be rid of the emptiness they have without God. So they seek out the next best thing, Christians, because Christians are close to God. [/quote]
Its nice of you to speak on my behalf again as you have done before in a previous post. But actually, I am here to understand better a contingent of people that live within the society that I do. We have many Christians in my country and I do find an online forum as a good opportunity to better understand them. In real life, questioning ones belief can and does rub people the wrong way. I have been on an atheist forum for a few months and have observed many trollish Christian visitors. They often say "crazy" things and I found an opportunity to join this forum where I could actually meet non trollish Christians and potentially get a better understanding of them. I won't debate the existence of god because I am quite sure there is no material evidence and hence discussions will only delve into theology which to me is the world of make believe.
I am not sure why generally the theists visiting the atheist forum are only Christians, possibly because Christians have a huge drive to evangalise, where as muslims, jewish, hindus do not. But anyway, I most likely will be visiting some of those forums too, to get a better understanding of those communities, the people not the religion. But these people are by far a minority in my country. So in summary I am not here to validate my beliefs, (I am pretty secure in my stance, although I am open to listening to others view), I do not long for god on any level. I do not see god as anything more than an imaginary concept.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307260221' post='2250112']
I think you're here for more than that, it is a common practice amongst atheists which I find rather strange if they are indeed so sure no God exists why seek out the company of Christians? But I will give you that, Christianity is indeed fascinating, something atheism is not, specially negative atheism.

Also I am completely claim and cool.

Lastly your opinions are your opinion. I would if I were you want what I believe to rely on something more than just my opinions. As I've said a 100 times, if there's no objective truth all opinions no matter how good they sound are just opinions and all opinions are equal in value. It is a great and fatal flaw.
[/quote]

Yes, my opinions are just my opinion, and I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with the fact that others have opinions, but not so with claims of immutable truth, or any claim of insight into the ultimate Truth (with the capital T) of reality without proving that it's the case, especially if those beliefs are not restricted to the private individual which is nearly always the case with institutionalised religion.

I also think that there is an objective reality though that doesn't mean that it's known. How on earth the supernatural reality (if it exists) can be known objectively is beyond me.

I'm not sure that no god exists, I never said that, I just reject the claims of people who say they have a personal relationship with god even though I can't prove that they don't. There are an infinite number of possible gods, including those that no human has ever thought of, or is even capable of thinking of.

I find all religious belief to be fascinating, especially how beliefs work and why people have them, and there are some cool people on this forum.

Edited June 5, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307269384' post='2250116']
Everyone who has ever been in existence, all people, all living creatures, all inanimate objects have been atheists at some point.
When a person is born they have no understanding of anything, and hence no belief in gods. To believe in gods one must be taught.[/quote]

Yes. I thought it relevant to ask KoC if he was ever an atheist while old enough to think of potential consequences of a lack of belief.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307212927' post='2249931']
I guess they could, I doubt I would ever see miscarriages as a supernatural occurrence. I mean it looks like that's more in line with what deism is about. There's the natural world and there's a god but god does not interfere in the natural world. There are also all the versions of god in between.

Whenever I speculate on these things I think that a deistic god would be more believable, not an interventionist god.

You don't even have to believe that god is specifically out to get you to be bothered by these things once you accept that one that intervenes exists.

What I'm saying that once you accept that there is a mind behind the creation of the universe it raises all sort of moral questions for natural mechanisms such as whether there is the intent to cause something or not. For one, how do you even know what god intended to cause and what he didn't? If he didn't cause it, then why didn't he intervene to prevent harm, being all powerful? Why [i]let[/i] bad things happen? [/quote]

Just to add to this, I'm aware that death, for instance, is a natural necessity, besides being a normal part of life. I think it's important to differentiate between what would be "harm" at the individual level and what that would mean at the societal level, or even in the natural order of things.

Most people don't want to die, it's an instinctual behaviour. We as human beings are as far as we know the only species that is aware of our own death and at the same time don't find our deaths the least bit desirable. Many would consider death to be harmful in their personal lives because it causes both anxiety and suffering.

At the societal level, it changes a bit and maintaining a level of order at this scale is indifferent to what individual perceive as "harm". A group attempting to sustain itself would run into some serious problems if people got old and didn't die. Population control and sustaining a high number of less productive citizens would be a tricky issue to solve, if it could be solved. If people didn't get old and could remain productive, there would still be the question of population number control in a finite world with finite resources.

How do you reconcile what is a necessity at this scale and the individuals that the level consists of? What I think religious arguments fail at is really considering the individual is some cases, such as euthanasia for those who are terminally ill and voluntarily wish to end their lives. They would be only taking their own and not infringing on the right of another. I hold the opposite view to the mainstream religious argument.

At the natural level taking into account the way the world is, if there was no death, there wouldn't be any biological change. Death is a necessary ingredient for evolution and higher adaptiveness to changing environments. It's all very dynamic at this level.

An interventionist god could be justified in [i]letting [/i]death happen, the world being set up as it is.

So which one would be the objective truth? Things that should happen, should happen?

After reading a bit more on A.J Ayer and listening to some of his interviews, I've come to a conclusion that even the psychological attributions of meaning* and purpose to natural events or things that [i]should[/i] happen because they [i]do[/i] happen can be dismissed as subjectivity.

You could argue that god was the one who established order in the first place, but it does nothing to support the idea that there is an objective morality.

* Neurologists such as Ramachandran say that attributions of meaning is in some way part of our type of consciousness due to an overdeveloped language center in the brain. Humans also have an in built hyperactive agency detector which is responsible for attributing conscious intentional agents behind events and therefore meaning to possibly meaningless events. Basically asking 'why' things happen.

Edited June 5, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307269384' post='2250116']
I won't debate the existence of god because I am quite sure there is no material evidence and hence discussions will only delve into theology which to me is the world of make believe.

[/quote]

I'm just wondering, what do you think of Lanciano?

I'm merely curious to hear what a non-Catholic says about it.

[stevil]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307289689' post='2250158']
I'm just wondering, what do you think of Lanciano?

I'm merely curious to hear what a non-Catholic says about it.
[/quote]
We have the technology, DNA test the stuff.

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307291850' post='2250165']
We have the technology, DNA test the stuff.
[/quote]

What do you want them to DNA test?
They determined that the blood type was AB+, and has been in a natural state for 12 centuries, which would normally dry up in a day.

[stevil]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307299051' post='2250194']
What do you want them to DNA test?
They determined that the blood type was AB+, and has been in a natural state for 12 centuries, which would normally dry up in a day.
[/quote]
You can't determine a match based on a simple blood type match, no-one would get convicted of any crime on that evidence, we need something much more convincing. A lot can be understood from DNA. Does the DNA match other eurochrist miracles? Does it indicate the ethnicity of the person? Does it show that genetically the person was remarkable in some way or very similar to other people from that region?
The not drying up bit is interesting, but I don't know what tests should be done with that regard.

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307307267' post='2250226']
You can't determine a match based on a simple blood type match, no-one would get convicted of any crime on that evidence, we need something much more convincing. A lot can be understood from DNA. Does the DNA match other eurochrist miracles? Does it indicate the ethnicity of the person? Does it show that genetically the person was remarkable in some way or very similar to other people from that region?
The not drying up bit is interesting, but I don't know what tests should be done with that regard.
[/quote]

The AB+ at least matches other Eucharistic miracles as well as the Shroud of Torin. But even if we did get a DNA test for him, I doubt that it would show anything all that remarkable (other than that his blood hasn't dried up for 11 centuries), because it was his soul that allowed him to perform miracles, not his body. What[i] does[/i] it make you think though?, because you seem to be showing some curiosity.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307269384' post='2250116']
Its nice of you to speak on my behalf again as you have done before in a previous post. But actually, I am here to understand better a contingent of people that live within the society that I do. We have many Christians in my country and I do find an online forum as a good opportunity to better understand them. In real life, questioning ones belief can and does rub people the wrong way. I have been on an atheist forum for a few months and have observed many trollish Christian visitors. They often say "crazy" things and I found an opportunity to join this forum where I could actually meet non trollish Christians and potentially get a better understanding of them. I won't debate the existence of god because I am quite sure there is no material evidence and hence discussions will only delve into theology which to me is the world of make believe.
I am not sure why generally the theists visiting the atheist forum are only Christians, possibly because Christians have a huge drive to evangalise, where as muslims, jewish, hindus do not. But anyway, I most likely will be visiting some of those forums too, to get a better understanding of those communities, the people not the religion. But these people are by far a minority in my country. So in summary I am not here to validate my beliefs, (I am pretty secure in my stance, although I am open to listening to others view), I do not long for god on any level. I do not see god as anything more than an imaginary concept.
[/quote]

Not to be picky but you don't have any [i]belief[/i] remember? It's purely negative. Still it is odd, I don't believe in UFO or other such like minded nonsense. I do not go to UFO/conspiracy websites to understand people better who believe in that nonsense. It's a waste of time they believe in nonsense their crazy they believe in imagery things that are real. I understand why Christians go to atheists boards but really if atheists doubt so much the existence of God and dismiss it as a form of imagination or whatever nonsense it makes little sense to be curious in Christianity or Christians. It shouldn't matter but it does and that in itself is curious. Curiousity in Christianity or any form of belief in God or gods may, may just be what you say it is, and it may be something more than that. It may be a longing for something more than nothing a longing for God, or to validate their lack of belief.

[stevil]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307321725' post='2250284']
The AB+ at least matches other Eucharistic miracles as well as the Shroud of Torin. But even if we did get a DNA test for him, I doubt that it would show anything all that remarkable (other than that his blood hasn't dried up for 11 centuries), because it was his soul that allowed him to perform miracles, not his body. What[i] does[/i] it make you think though?, because you seem to be showing some curiosity.
[/quote]
Honestly, it is interesting.
I would think many Catholics would want DNA tests done. It would show at the very least that Eurochrist miracles occuring many many years apart are either from the same person or different.

It certainly is fascinated that it hasn't rotted or dried. Have they attempted to dry it by exposing for long period to dry air? or rot it by introducing bacteria? I would be interested to know more details

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307275519' post='2250121']
[b]I'm not sure that no god exists[/b], I never said that, I just reject the claims of people who say they have a personal relationship with god even though I can't prove that they don't. There are an infinite number of possible gods, including those that no human has ever thought of, or is even capable of thinking of.

I find all religious belief to be fascinating, especially how beliefs work and why people have them, and there are some cool people on this forum.
[/quote]

Then there is chance for you yet Sister. Though it may mean little to nothing to you. I shall pray for you because I do believe you are certainly on the path to finding God. Because you do believe in some form of Objective Morality, and you do believe in Objective truth, even though at first you claimed you did not. You may yet still think that but you're statements to me prove otherwise.

God Bless!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307324438' post='2250292']
Then there is chance for you yet Sister. Though it may mean little to nothing to you. I shall pray for you because I do believe you are certainly on the path to finding God. Because you do believe in some form of Objective Morality, and you do believe in Objective truth, even though at first you claimed you did not. You may yet still think that but you're statements to me prove otherwise.

God Bless!
[/quote]

Gee...I'm flattered, I guess?

You needn't do that, I'm just here because I want to know why god is as obvious to people as 1+1=2 is to me.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307208275' post='2249906']
Because it's much more the potential for developed human life (person) underway than an actual person. The best argument for this is that identical twins come from the same conception. In that case, the potential becomes more than one person. [/quote]

You do not "become" a human being. A man and a woman cannot "make" anything other than a human being.

[quote] and the intent to cause harm (to use the term loosely) is something I consider when evaluating whether I think something is moral or not. Without god, miscarriages are just a natural occurrence, and nature is without morality, since morality is in part a product of societal order. [/quote]

Perhaps, when speculating over God, you should keep in mind that compared to God* you are a finite creature, one who has been created by an infinite Being. Your definitions of "morality" and "immorality" are just that, yours - one must recognize that it is impossible to put one's self on God's level. Therefore God sent His Son down to [i]our[/i] level so that we may better understand Him. God has entered into our lives in an incredibly intimate way.

I know that I am about to side-track us, but: I am really, really curious to hear your opinion on Jesus Christ.

*I recognize that you have no belief in God, but I am sure in your speculations there are a lot of "ifs", such as "if God exists..." or "if God did this..." etc.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307212927' post='2249931']
What I'm saying that once you accept that there is a mind behind the creation of the universe it raises all sort of moral questions for natural mechanisms such as whether there is the intent to cause something or not. For one, how do you even know what god intended to cause and what he didn't? If he didn't cause it, then why didn't he intervene to prevent harm, being all powerful? Why [i]let[/i] bad things happen?

The most common counter arguments I've come across to solve this cognitive dissonance is that suffering is necessary to build character or get you to see things a certain way. I don't know. I just think that adding god to the picture complicates things and that's just one of the reasons why I don't believe. God doesn't provide any answers and is unnecessary for them.
[/quote]

When God created man, he gave us free will. God does not want to force anyone to love Him; that is not true, pure love. Human beings have a choice. Whether you personally believe it or not, you are using the free will God gave you right now. It hurts God tremendously when His children reject Him, but He would rather experience that pain than stand for His children to be forced to do something against their will. You can reject God, my friend, but He believes in you and will never reject you. Whatever choice you make, in the end He will honor that choice.

Thus from the beginning, man had the choice to accept or reject God. When God was rejected, in other words when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him and succumbed to pride, assuming themselves on the same level as God, sin entered the world and spread its poison across the globe. Mankind is responsible for bringing bad things into this world.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307335345' post='2250348']You do not "become" a human being. A man and a woman cannot "make" anything other than a human being. [/quote]

It's a bit difficult to explain, but at the early stage, it's a bunch of cells with human DNA well on it's way to becoming something recognisably human. I think Sam Harris put it into context better than I could:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U[/media]


[quote]Perhaps, when speculating over God, you should keep in mind that compared to God* you are a finite creature, one who has been created by an infinite Being. Your definitions of "morality" and "immorality" are just that, yours - one must recognize that it is impossible to put one's self on God's level. Therefore God sent His Son down to [i]our[/i] level so that we may better understand Him. God has entered into our lives in an incredibly intimate way.[/quote]

Yes, that is one thing I keep in mind, and one more reason why I reject claims of personal relationships with him, especially since there's nothing to suggest that people can go beyond their experiences. It's unreasonable to think that a mind of finite wisdom could even begin to understand one of infinite wisdom, if it exists, and I extend that to all churches and religious authorities.

But it's true, I do speculate a lot, though I'm fully aware that they're just speculations.

The whole morality point is that it seems to me that human morality is more real than god's, or that god is not as preoccupied with people. But I say this because I can't imagine a world where there would be a divine morality guiding us.

[quote]I know that I am about to side-track us, but: I am really, really curious to hear your opinion on Jesus Christ. [/quote]

Opinion on what exactly? What I think of his character?

[quote]*I recognize that you have no belief in God, but I am sure in your speculations there are a lot of "ifs", such as "if God exists..." or "if God did this..." etc.

When God created man, he gave us free will. God does not want to force anyone to love Him; that is not true, pure love. Human beings have a choice. Whether you personally believe it or not, you are using the free will God gave you right now. It hurts God tremendously when His children reject Him, but He would rather experience that pain than stand for His children to be forced to do something against their will. You can reject God, my friend, but He believes in you and will never reject you. Whatever choice you make, in the end He will honor that choice.

Thus from the beginning, man had the choice to accept or reject God. When God was rejected, in other words when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him and succumbed to pride, assuming themselves on the same level as God, sin entered the world and spread its poison across the globe. Mankind is responsible for bringing bad things into this world.
[/quote]

I'm just curious, do you believe that the universe is deterministic?

Edited June 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307336524' post='2250353']
It's a bit difficult to explain, but at the early stage, it's a bunch of cells with human DNA well on it's way to becoming something recognisably human. I think Sam Harris put it into context better than I could:
[/quote]

What is "recognizably human"? Who gets to determine that? And how do you avoid [b]bigotry[/b]?


[b]The Liberty of Men[/b]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 1

This is the founding principle of our Nation. The words promise Liberty for all men, but
how you interpret, Men, and Liberty changes their respected meanings.
How you interpret those words will likely effect how you answer the following questions.

What is truth? Do you hear it when it is spoken? Does it exist? Is it objective, or subjective?

What is Man? The first question of the first day in this class, if I am not mistaken.
So, What is Man, or rather who is man and who is not.
Because who is and who is not a person determines
who has Liberty and who is denied Liberty.

What is the origin of Liberty? Where do our rights come from?
Are rights given by the Law, does Government give the people Liberty?

Repeatedly through out time, again and again, man has denied the humanity and personhood of his fellow man.
Because Man has continually denied the truth. The Truth that no matter what race, sex, or creed people maybe,
everyone is human, everyone has personhood. Everyone has rights and liberty.

Yet men have always broke this truth with the use of the Law, the Government.
If rights are given by Government, rights can be taken away by Government.
These types of laws have unjustly 'justified' the oppression of women
and even greater evils such as the enslavement of the African, and the Jewish Holocaust.

These laws where based on limited Personhood. Which is based upon cognitive ability, physical form, and dependence.
Non-person persons, or less than human, humans, have always had their cognitive ability attacked,
their intelligence or their apparent lack thereof.
Their physical form such as skin color, black or white or sex, man or woman.

But that type of injustice is a thing of the past, right? In America, while by no means prefect, She has learned
something from the oppression of women, the enslavement of blacks, and the lessons of the Holocaust. Right?

Yet, what if I told you that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where murdered today, completely within the Law? 2
Would you quickly demand the Government to carry out justice for the slain?

How you would feel, and your actions would be determined on your acceptance or denial of the truth,
who you classify as human, and who you deny personhood too. As well as where you believe Liberty comes from.

Most if not All Americans today will say they believe Liberty is for everyone, no matter what.

And most would be quite upset to hear that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where brutally murdered every day in America.
Yet when it is revealed that those poor souls are unborn babies, suddenly Liberty is not for all,
and can be denied to the unwanted, the forgotten, the nonperson person.

Despite claims to the contrary, science has irrefutably proven that life,
human life begins at conception. At that moment a unique being exist,
one with it's own unique genetic structure, and therefor is a member of the Homo sapiens species. 3

So when it comes to the unborn child, the question is not if she is human.
But if a human can be a nonperson?
Clearly the answer is no, all humans are persons.


Yet, personhood is denied to the unborn just as slaves, and the Jewish people where legally denied personhood.
A law decreed that a group of unwanted human beings were legally nonpersons, and could be enslaved or put to death.

Laws that allow for the murder of children is based on the same reasoning of the past.
That these people are not persons, because they lack a certain cognitive ability,
or lack an approved physical form, and dependence.

If a unborn child is not human based on the lack of cognitive ability, what of the mentally handicap?
Are they less than human because of their handicap? And does it justify killing them?
What of burn victims, and persons missing both their arms and legs?
Are they also less than human because they lack "human form"? And does that justify killing them?

A child from when she is born from her mothers womb until she has at lest reached adolescence,
is completely dependent on her parents.
Does that dependence justify killing her?

No, of course not, but for some reason it justifies the killing of the unborn.

Which side will ultimately win the day is not yet known. Yet the choice is clear to those that wish to see the truth.
America and the world must decide if it wants to live
the dream of Maraget Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood that dream that

'Colored people are human weeds and they are to be exterminated.' 4

and

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5


I pray that we live the Dream of Liberty which is found in the preamble of the Declaration,
and was the Dream of Martian Luther King that dream that..

"We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped
of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity"

And

"When we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city.

We will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing the words

"Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" 7


----------------------

1. The Declaration of Independence

2. Statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute Website: Jeff J. Koloze, Abortion in the African-American Community, Sociological Data and Literary Examples

3. E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20

4. Killer Angel: George Grant: Reformer Press: page 65: Woman's Body, Woman's Right: p 332: see also Killer Angel: p 73

5. The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

6. Martin Luther King Jr, I Have a Dream Speech

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307337407' post='2250356']
What is "recognizably human"? Who gets to determine that? And how do you avoid [b]bigotry[/b]?


[b]The Liberty of Men[/b]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 1

This is the founding principle of our Nation. The words promise Liberty for all men, but
how you interpret, Men, and Liberty changes their respected meanings.
How you interpret those words will likely effect how you answer the following questions.

What is truth? Do you hear it when it is spoken? Does it exist? Is it objective, or subjective?

What is Man? The first question of the first day in this class, if I am not mistaken.
So, What is Man, or rather who is man and who is not.
Because who is and who is not a person determines
who has Liberty and who is denied Liberty.

What is the origin of Liberty? Where do our rights come from?
Are rights given by the Law, does Government give the people Liberty?

Repeatedly through out time, again and again, man has denied the humanity and personhood of his fellow man.
Because Man has continually denied the truth. The Truth that no matter what race, sex, or creed people maybe,
everyone is human, everyone has personhood. Everyone has rights and liberty.

Yet men have always broke this truth with the use of the Law, the Government.
If rights are given by Government, rights can be taken away by Government.
These types of laws have unjustly 'justified' the oppression of women
and even greater evils such as the enslavement of the African, and the Jewish Holocaust.

These laws where based on limited Personhood. Which is based upon cognitive ability, physical form, and dependence.
Non-person persons, or less than human, humans, have always had their cognitive ability attacked,
their intelligence or their apparent lack thereof.
Their physical form such as skin color, black or white or sex, man or woman.

But that type of injustice is a thing of the past, right? In America, while by no means prefect, She has learned
something from the oppression of women, the enslavement of blacks, and the lessons of the Holocaust. Right?

Yet, what if I told you that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where murdered today, completely within the Law? 2
Would you quickly demand the Government to carry out justice for the slain?

How you would feel, and your actions would be determined on your acceptance or denial of the truth,
who you classify as human, and who you deny personhood too. As well as where you believe Liberty comes from.

Most if not All Americans today will say they believe Liberty is for everyone, no matter what.

And most would be quite upset to hear that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where brutally murdered every day in America.
Yet when it is revealed that those poor souls are unborn babies, suddenly Liberty is not for all,
and can be denied to the unwanted, the forgotten, the nonperson person.

Despite claims to the contrary, science has irrefutably proven that life,
human life begins at conception. At that moment a unique being exist,
one with it's own unique genetic structure, and therefor is a member of the Homo sapiens species. 3

So when it comes to the unborn child, the question is not if she is human.
But if a human can be a nonperson?
Clearly the answer is no, all humans are persons.


Yet, personhood is denied to the unborn just as slaves, and the Jewish people where legally denied personhood.
A law decreed that a group of unwanted human beings were legally nonpersons, and could be enslaved or put to death.

Laws that allow for the murder of children is based on the same reasoning of the past.
That these people are not persons, because they lack a certain cognitive ability,
or lack an approved physical form, and dependence.

If a unborn child is not human based on the lack of cognitive ability, what of the mentally handicap?
Are they less than human because of their handicap? And does it justify killing them?
What of burn victims, and persons missing both their arms and legs?
Are they also less than human because they lack "human form"? And does that justify killing them?

A child from when she is born from her mothers womb until she has at lest reached adolescence,
is completely dependent on her parents.
Does that dependence justify killing her?

No, of course not, but for some reason it justifies the killing of the unborn.

Which side will ultimately win the day is not yet known. Yet the choice is clear to those that wish to see the truth.
America and the world must decide if it wants to live
the dream of Maraget Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood that dream that

'Colored people are human weeds and they are to be exterminated.' 4

and

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5


I pray that we live the Dream of Liberty which is found in the preamble of the Declaration,
and was the Dream of Martian Luther King that dream that..

"We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped
of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity"

And

"When we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city.

We will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing the words

"Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" 7


----------------------

1. The Declaration of Independence

2. Statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute Website: Jeff J. Koloze, Abortion in the African-American Community, Sociological Data and Literary Examples

3. E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20

4. Killer Angel: George Grant: Reformer Press: page 65: Woman's Body, Woman's Right: p 332: see also Killer Angel: p 73

5. The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

6. Martin Luther King Jr, I Have a Dream Speech
[/quote]

Depends on human in what form. Such as in the examples you posted above:

Either when the embryo starts to look like a human (head, eyes, two arms and two legs). I think that when it reaches this stage then abortion is not justified however.

Not so much about cognitive ability but rather a formed nervous system. We would have to assume that it is fully capable of feeling pain and so there are moral implications when defined "harm" as something that causes pain.

IMO life at conception is life, but it's not a person because there it might even split to become two separate humans within the course of a few days. Before those days there's no reason to assume that it's specifically one person. It would be a bunch of cells with human DNA in the earliest stage of developmental process. There's no reason to assume that these cells would be conscious or feel pain.

If compared to a biological analogy, stem cells would be even less than a protozoa. [b]At that stage[/b], the human DNA it has makes it no more biologically special than very simple organisms. I'm speaking in biological terms, not legal.

Biologically, the example of removing person hood from blacks, mentally handicapped etc. with stem cells is not a fair comparison.

Edited June 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

===

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307338996' post='2250363']
Depends on human in what form. Such as in the examples you posted above:

Either when the embryo starts to look like a human (head, eyes, two arms and two legs). I think that when it reaches this stage then abortion is not justified however.

Not so much about cognitive ability but rather a formed nervous system. We would have to assume that it is fully capable of feeling pain and so there are moral implications when defined "harm" as something that causes pain.

IMO life at conception is life, but it's not a person because there it might even split to become two separate humans within the course of a few days. Before those days there's no reason to assume that it's specifically one person. It would be a bunch of cells with human DNA in the earliest stage of developmental process. There's no reason to assume that these cells would be conscious or feel pain.

If compared to a biological analogy, stem cells would be even less than a protozoa. [b]At that stage[/b], the human DNA it has makes it no more biologically special than very simple organisms. I'm speaking in biological terms, not legal.

Biologically, the example of removing person hood from blacks, mentally handicapped etc. with stem cells is not a fair comparison.
[/quote]

I'll be competely straight with you. If you deny the humanity/personhood of the unborn it's out right bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307340938' post='2250374']
I'll be competely straight with you. If you deny the humanity of the unborn it's out right bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[/quote]

Deny what exactly? Like I mentioned to HisChildForever there are other philosophical implications, but those lie in the future. I just can't, in my mind, see a collection of cells in one stage in a given time frame to trump the needs of people who think, feel and suffer. Call it my opinion and call it a day.

What are your views on embrionic cells that would otherwise be discarded of, such as the excesses for in vitro fertilization? In your view would those be okay if the parents consented?