It can't be abstinence and preaching all the time.
That's right - abortion. I absolutely love to dismantle the mindless liberal drones and Bushbots that haunt my favorite message boards. As a Christian man, and a traditionalist, I am decidedly pro-life. What I have come up against with one nemesis in particular on occasion when debating abortion on demand is the notion that the vast majority of pro-lifers are completely disinterested in "the living."…
Article comments
26 - Andy Marsh
Yeah, that's pretty typical too, you can't answer the argument so pick out a couple of words and beat them to death.
I think I understand what the AH actually stands for in your name there AH...
27 - Lance Droy
@ Al Barger
Hi, yeah thought I'd enter the debate. Basically I would like to address your very woolly reference to the soul and ask you to qualify it.
"I don't have any True and Profound Final Answer to such a question"
Then why do you advocate so forcefully that the soul exists? Besides you seem to be trying to fool us into believing you do hence:
"Seems like soul or spirit is a function of the biological chemistry rather than a discreet physical object separate from anything else. Spirit seems to be a verb rather than a noun."
Seems? Seems? How so? The soul is a function of biological chemistry? Thats either you trying to be so totally vague that no one can challenge you or you defeating yourself. Either you are saying that the soul is in-fact the process of your bodily function , that it is all the rules that make your body work. In which case you are inseparably mixing body and soul, essentially saying that soul IS body. If they are the same thing then all you are saying is that the body is divine(assuming your argument is based on the soul's being so). Which is great, I happen to agree, but it makes your other argument (no morality without soul, body is not enough) fall on its face. Or you are saying that the soul is some kind of third-person observer that watches and pulls our bodies strings. In that case you are saying that the soul is very separate from the body and no longer a function but a thing, a NOUN not a verb.
"You know it because you experience it. Again, if there's no soul, or it's just some subjective product of my imagination, then is there some reason I shouldn't just be able to kill any inconvenient biological unit that crosses my path?"
So we ALL experience it do we? You realize that is a trick. How can we deny experiencing an un-known feeling? As to the second part; subjective morality aside, we the American people created a society that was intended to allow each member to prosper. That society was based on laws of cohesion that for better of worse follow the mantra of "please as many people as possible( that is the principle of an uncorrupted democracy, it has too be if you want to be re-elected). The idea of society's laws is that each person get as much out of his/her life as possible. You don't need a personal moral philosohpy, simply to know that you go against the wishes and purpose of your own society.
Most people have trouble with that analogy so lets simply phrase it like this, either humankind has never had "souls" and human morality has developed to value living human beings. Or it always has had "souls" and the same is true. Either way the moral codes would still have developed. If there are no souls then you simply have to re-adjust your criteria. Why cant those "inconvenient biological units" (humans) be just as amazing, wonderful and valuable without you shoving your dis-satisfied "ghost in the machine" inside them? Why is nature not enough , why do you have to make it something else?
I am not claiming to be able to disprove the soul, there are far clever people than me who would out argue me in an instant. The thing that irritates me about your writing Al is that you are trying fool people with flowery language. You haven't actually produced any real arguments for what you say. It's unfair on Scott.
Sorry to enter the community in such a negative way. I'm really quite nice, honestly.
p.s i wrote this late at night so please excuse the grammatical errors.
28 - Dr Dreadful
The concept or location of "soul" is tricky.
Defining what is meant by "soul" is also tricky, Al. The word has distinct religious overtones and implies immortality or at least an actual or potential existence outside the physical body.
If "you can't take it with you" and it is simply a function of body chemistry, then isn't it just a synonym for consciousness? Self-awareness? Or personality? Or an umbrella term for all of these? Is your soul what makes you "You"?
We know that the fetus after a certain point in its development has consciousness. There's a fascinating discussion of fetal psychology here, including mention of a study into gestational personality, but it's far from clear how much individuality develops in the womb without any interaction with other humans.
All of which would seem to imply that the developing fetus has a "soul" - but if that mystical organ is simply a part of our biology, then what, as Scott asks, makes it fundamentally different from his wife's gall bladder?
29 - Al Barger
Lance Droy- Brother Droy, thanks for dropping in. Apologies are unnecessary - your comments are perfect friendly and reasonable.
But you and the Dreadful Dr are both tripping out on whatever exactly implications you are adding on the word "soul." I'm not trying to be flowery or mystical, there I do sometimes feel awesome wonder.
I'm certainly NOT, however, specifically implying immortality or resurrection, which could possibly apply - but which I've never seen evidence of. I've never seen a spirit discorporate from a body, so I doubt it. But that makes the sanctity of THIS life MORE critical rather than less. If I were a Christian expecting eternal life with Jesus, getting killed here wouldn't be near as big a deal.
If it makes you feel better, substitute the word "consciousness" for "soul" if it offends your religious phobias. The point is the same. A gall bladder doesn't have consciousness, nor could it ever survive independently. A little baby is different on both counts.
30 - Scott M.
Mr. Dowden,
I've been giving this some thought over at another discussion blog. Not being a woman, the obvious answer to this discussion had slipped right past me and it goes back to the whole gall bladder thing.
A good analogy I think is to ask myself would I be willing to let others make decisions about what goes on inside my body over my objections? Would I let anyone else decide I needed my gall bladder removed if I said no? Hell No! What if they said I must leave my gall bladder in place even if I thought I needed it removed? Again the answer is Hell No!
What is inside my body is mine and for me solely alone to decide what to do with. If I were a woman and someone made the argument I couldn't remove a fetus or baby even though I thought it necessary, the answer is those people can get stuffed!
So my conclusion is, what is inside a person's body is solely that person's responsibility and decision about what to do with (lousy grammar, sorry). I will now and forever take the position that a woman is free to have an abortion at any stage in order to protect myself from other's interference with what happens inside my own body.
I'm also beginning to think the only MEN that should be allowed to vote AGAINST a woman's right to choose are those men willing to cut off their own penises. Bring your severed penis is and receive your voting card. I can't help but think some of these men that are against a woman's right to choose are that was in part because it doesn't cost them anything personally. I wonder how many of these commenters are so enthusiastic about their positions that they're willing to make the penis sacrifice?