Comments on: Abortion and the Architecture of Reality

By: Life and Death « Pure Premium

Life and Death « Pure Premium — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:39:04 +0000

[...] you’re interested in how to go about thinking about when life begins, you may enjoy reading Abortion and the Architecture of Reality by some guy named Sean. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Teen Community Service [...]

By: IngS

IngS — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:14:52 +0000

I don’t think we can call miscarriage suicide, nor we can call a person’s death suicide or homicide if the person has died due to natural causes. The truth is that homicide, abortion, and suicide are all synonyms. It means that you are consciously killing a human being. When you have a miscarriage, it was something that went wrong, you did not intend to kill the future baby, and if you intentionally had a miscarriage, that is killing. It all goes down to the ethics and moralities of a society. I support Obama, but I don’t agree with the liberal idea of accepting abortion. The United States, as a nation that believes in God (like we say in everything we do “In God we trust”), then we should abide by His rules instead of trying to satisfy our own sexual needs. Getting laid with someone you’re not married to is a sin, as it is sleeping with 10x different people. And if we analyze it, it has its reasons. That’s how diseases are transmitted. If you don’t want to have a baby, then please close your legs (to the females), and to the males.. keep it in your pants! Just stop sinning because that is what’s sinking this nation. True, we will never be perfect, but it is our duty as daughters and sons of God to follow His rules. Just like parents want their kids to follow their rules while they live under their roof, so should all of us kids and adults follow God’s rules, because we live in Earth, which is His home… let’s follow his rules! He does it because it’s just going to benefit us.
And as a former fetus myself, I oppose abortion! And I think we all should, because once we were a fetus and we could have been aborted, but we weren’t. We are here for a reason, let give others the chance to have a life, because the truth is that either of us can create or reproduce life (cloning..not really), so let wonder take place, don’t take it for granted because God is big, if He created life, don’t destroy it. It is not up to you to decide when a person’s life should end.

By: IngS

IngS — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:09:25 +0000

By: Anthony Rotz

Anthony Rotz — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:39:53 +0000

If we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the human person exists at the moment of conception, women would still have abortions. All life needs protection the unborn child more so.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:01:14 +0000

Abortion is an ugly. complicated argument, but it becomes a lot simpler when you ask *the right questions*

For example, as the article alludes to, a debate about female freedom, rights and sexuality is completely secondary to the question ‘is abortion murder’. If abortion isn’t murder, then we can move on to those issues, if it is murder those issues become irrelevant.

Unlike the author though, I don’t think the question we should be asking is “When does the fetus become a person?”, if only because it is an impossible question. Rather, the question should be phrased something like: “Is it murder to kill something that you know will develop into a person?” Think of someone aborting you as a child, would that not end your existence as much as a knife or gun wound could right now? On the other hand, can someone really be accountable for knowingly killing a future person?

By: Paul Murray

Paul Murray — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:07:33 +0000

“science is powerless to tell us when “personhood” begins”

And that’s because personhood is – at heart – a political question.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:28:36 +0000

andyo.
It was general, mostly to brooks and others. But I assume the worst of everyone in these arguments.
Apologies, again.

By: andyo

andyo — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:48:38 +0000

Seth,

Since when is Descartes the founder of rationalism? Or do you mean “modern rationalism?”

That’s why I asked the question. I didn’t know what you meant by “rationalism”. When you said that “rationalism began as a theological argument” I think it’s not the “rationalism” most scientifically minded people talk about. This rationalism is more akin to empiricism, in that “rational” means non-dogmatic and following evidence. It’s probably loosely used, but the only ones who think to make a big deal of it is philosophers or lawyers.

Anyway, I hadn’t read all your posts, I wasn’t even arguing with you. I just asked an honest question so where did this come from?

I’m repeating myself. If you were a bit more empirically minded wouldn’t have to.

I don’t get it, was it directed at me?

By: Fill

Fill — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:13:42 +0000

I am not really sure what the Cassini story has to do with anything, nor how anything you said in your post really rebuts the point that science clearly informs our modern moral systems.

It would be expedient to the understanding of your arguments if you used standard english syntax in your next post.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:56:09 +0000

“I can imagine a slightly different history in which our system of commonly-agreed-upon morals descended from science rather than religion; a great deal of modern history is the former replacing and modifying the dogma of the latter.”

The function of religion is social. ‘Truth’ is not the point. But when science is seen as undermining community then religion is defended ideologized as truth in a defensive response.

Science is about desire for unknown facts, that’s all. When the facts are known they go back to being the same thing they were when no one cared about them. A driven scientist may discover penicillin but what kind of imagination does it take to wonder if over-prescription might become a problem?
The telos of science is the telos of enthusiastic and unified group purpose, and that makes you dumb.

After the Huygens probe landed one of the project managers, describing her near ecstasy as the data began coming in referred to her relation to Titan as akin to love. This was said seemingly without self-consciousness or irony.
I was more fascinated by the wide-eyed, childlike expression on the woman’s face than by the rocks.