mooeypoo

Are you sure about that? Isn't that the entire point of hallucinations, to be indistinguishable from reality?

The statement 'abortion ends a human life' (as opposed to 'prevents the creation of human life' or anything closer to that) already assumes that human life starts from conception. Not only is the bunch of cells in a zygote *life*, they're already *human* life. It would be nice if it was anywhere at all supported by reason, though. If you consider the zygote life, then you have a problem with twins. And with about a billion different things that might happen to the pack of cells before they might turn into a fetus, and then into a human life. You can't just assume that it's life without supporting this assumption and making sure the logic sticks to other definitions as well. ~moo

But was never religious, Phi, nor did I grow up in a religious surrounding. My family was always atheists and though we're all Jewish, we consider that cultural/historical affiliation, and not religion. That's not to say I don't have beliefs, though. I think the distinction between belief and religion is enormous. Belief is personal; might be affected by the environment, but it's ultimately yours. Religion is mostly external, a system or group of laws, etc. It's a different approach, and, in my opinion, should be a different question.

It's tough for me to answer because I never had a religion. I did have faith, and that faith evolved and changed throughout the years, until today it involves non-deity-related morals. I'm mentioning this because I think there should be a distinction between religion (which is more a system, usually organized) and belief. Which are you asking? ~moo

Only if your goal is to perfectly simulate the original. If the goal is to simulate an specific aspect and allow for variables to be switched and tweaked, then 'perfect' would be different. I agree with Sisyphus, who managed to convey the point I was trying to make in my previous post, only much more coherently. The term "perfect" is meaningless unless we define it in the beginning, and then use the same definition when we compare things.

Wait a minute. Sisyphus gave the example of a computer simulation. You dismissed it because: Which universe are you talking about in the "perfect actual universe" ? If it's not our universe, then why the comment at all, and if it is, then what's "perfect"? Our universe is AGAINST human life. Is that perfect? If the universe "just is", then why is a simulation, which 'just is' too, not an example? Only if the original was perfect initially. It's circular definition at the moment, unless you prove that our CURRENT universe (the one that should be exactly duplicated) is perfect as well. Exact duplication of a badly-made original is not perfect. ~moo

Hrm, neither is God. The universe is far from perfect, unless you define perfect as "whatever the behavior of the universe is", in which case, perfection is far from what God claims it to be in the bible or any other religious text, and is by far *against* human survival. In other words, it seems "perfection" is relative.

It's not sentient until it proves to be. While the pieces are not demonstrating sentience -- even if the creature is all "assembled", it's not yet life, it has no difference from just a collection of spare parts. BTW, that by itself is leading. You're saying 'working on his human', which is assuming that the creature *IS* human. Alive, sentient and human. That is a false assumption that requires quite a lot of evidence before it can be taken into consideration. By saying he is working on his 'human', you're already leading us to have an emotional connection with this creation, and hence leading towards a conclusion. Dr. Frankenstein is working on a "creature" at best and an assembly of spare biological parts at least. It's not yet human. It's not yet sentient. It's not yet nothing other than a biological pack of parts screwed-in together. NO. You are again stating an assumption, Cap'n. What's "almost alive"? You cannot state anything about this "creature" other than the fact it is an assembly of biological parts that physically resembles a (disturbing) human being. It is not alive. It is not sentient. It is not "almost" alive. What's almost alive? It has the potential, perhaps, to be alive if more parameters will be introduced, maybe. But it's not there yet. An early-stages fetus is a collection of cells. Some, actually, are indistinguishable from a cyst; in fact, there are 'mock' pregnancies involving cysts. Is it "almost alive" ? What's almost alive? It's either alive or it's not. It has the potential to, at some point in the future, if certain properties are added, to become what we define as life, and to become what we define as sentient. It's not there yet. When it is advanced enough to be there, we don't consider the option of abortion. Late-term abortions are extremely rare and need a very special medical reason. This is both for the sake of the pregnant woman's health *and* for the sake of assuming the fetus already has a somewhat functioning brain (though not completely) and might be considered a sentient being. "Almost-alive" might come right there, if it has meaning at all. ~moo

Consent means agreeing to. A child is able to agree to, he just lacks the capacity to fully understand the consequences of his actions. One of the most difficult thing to deal with when dealing with abused children is their anguish over blaming themselves. They usually don't say no, usually cooperate, and many times agree to participate. They are able to technically consent, we just *take away that ability* when we try the molester because we say the child cannot be responsible for consenting knowing what he's getting himself into. Again, Job isn't different in this case.

Actually, a child can consent, he just can't understand the meaning of the consequences. In fact, the main concern in child abuse is the ability of adults to manipulate the child psychologically to cooperate, while not understanding the ramifications on his innocence, psyche, and his physical wellbeing. In that aspect, the same goes to Job.

I found some of my notes. It seems like God is indeed described as omnipotent. Here are some key passages: Isaiah 40:25-26 To whom then will ye liken Me, that I should be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and see: who hath created these? He that bringeth out their host by number, He calleth them all by name; by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one faileth. Genesis 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD. At the set time I will return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sarah shall have a son.' There are a few more, but it seems God is described as a being that can do anything. And even more, when someone doubts the power of God, he is punished. ~moo

So is crossing the street, brushing your teeth, choosing shoes instead of boots, etc. Everything in life changes probabilities, the question is just what stands in opposition. Or, more to the point -- how IMPORTANT is the probable result when you weigh it against the potential alternative. When you choose to wear bright pink shoes to college you stop the probability of getting laid, but the potential alternative is to please your mother. When you choose to do that on the expense of the other, you weighed in your choices, and made a decision. Same goes with abortion. I have a feeling that some of the reasons the discussion about abortion tends to deteriorate to extremes very often is due to some assumption that people who are pro-choice believe that the choice is easy to make, or the choice should be made on a whim. I don't think it is any of those, and as a woman and as someone who has a friend who had to go through it, it's not something she (or anyone, I suspect) would risk doing intentionally. It's NOT a nice experience. By far. Even if you support it. So, we all make decisions in life and every decision is an interference on some sort of statistical probability. The entire point of making a decision is to weigh in the two options and decide which is the better one. Sometimes oyu have two bad ones, and you're forced to decide which one's slightly less bad, but nontheless, life is full of choices. Abortion is one of them. If the fetus is not sentient, then merely by the fact we have no problem killing non sentient life in general we shouldn't have an ethical problem with aborting a pregnancy before the fetus becomes sentient (and, AT LEAST, has a functioning brain). It's therefore a decision to make, and I the discussion should be who should make this decision, or, more to the point, who has a right over their own body and who doesn't. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedp.s your examples are unfair. You are introducing emotional appeals in each of them; there's no doubt that the ETHICAL thing to do in 1 is not to risk killing the patient, specially when the risk is 90%. For this to be anywhere close to relevant in a debate over abortion, you need to first make the point that fetuses are alive and that the fetuses are comparable to a sentient, living person (the patient). Otherwise, it's just appeal to emotion, and it's a false analogy.

Can you bring the reference to that in the bible? I remember studying that, in the OT at least, God is never said to be omnibenevolent, but I do believe he's presented as omnipotent... God by the bible is vengeful and changes his mind, but he is still considered omnipotent. I remember that distinctly because I remember having problems reconciling the two in class... I'll have to dig up my old notes..... ~moo

Yes, you shouldn't just go abort on a whim. There should be education to use contraception and not to get to a situation where abortion is out of "comfort". In other cases, though, the likelihood stands against necessity or need, and it is up to the woman, who carries this "likelihood" to decide if the need or necessity is stronger, bigger and more dire than the likelihood of producing sentient life that might end up suffering (physically or mentally). Aborting a likelihood can be debated, but it can hardly be called immoral. We involve ourselves in statistics and 'bets' and likelyhoods all the time without claiming it's immoral, this isn't much different. It *might* result in a sentient being, and it might not. The consideration against having said fetus develop should be weighed against this likelihood to form the final decision. ~moo

I think these discussions often lack a distinction between life and sentience. We kill non sentient life all the time, from cleaning our house with detergent to brushing our teeth. The question of morality seems to be raised when sentience is involved. That's why anti-abortion people usually show a picture of a dead baby; to expose emotion to a *SENTIENT BABY* now dead. That's a powerful image, but it's moot until the life is sentient. I am not sure I agree that a zygote is life, but even if it is, it's absolutely not sentient, and the problem of morality doesn't apply to it. If we're saying that killing life is immoral, then we should stop using antibiotics, detergents, floss, alcohol, and many many more. If we're saying that killing sentient life is immoral, then we should wait until the zygote is developed, grown, the brain forms, and the baby shows signs of sentience before we should be worried about morality issues in aborting the pregnancy. Abortions after the first trimester are considered more complicated and more rare, and since a fetus does not have sentience before the second trimester (*at least*), then there should be no problem to abort a pregnancy. It's not sentient life yet. I'm not sure it is completely life, but even if it is, it's definitely not sentient. We're just being holier-than-thou with our approach to the *potential* of a child, rather than looking at the situation at the moment and making a decision based on the current status. ~moo

Not quite. Think of a fundamental law of physics. *law*. Does that law must exist in a parallel universe that has different constants? no. And yet, it's a law in our universe. It's not a 'semi law'. It is a law. God's omnibenevolence is not described in God's own realm, because there's no meaning to do that *in relation to us*. We only describe our own reality, in which God is ombnibenevolent. Also, considering God is said to be alone in his own realm (monotheism, baby), there's no one to be evil or good *to*. God does not harm himself and there is no one else to harm (or do good to) in his own realm, and therefore He is, by definition, benevolent in his own realm, too. As moot questions often are. Well, if you describe him as omnibenevolent, and then you find that he doesn't fit that definition, it doesn't mean he isn't Good, it just means your definition is lacking. It's circular reasoning. *You* defined god as X, and now you expect God to be X, and when you think God does not fit the definition of X, then instead of redefining X, you claim God does not exist. That doesn't make much logical sense. It's not just his own rules, it's within his reality. He is omnibenevolent. We aren't. Our definition of evil is defined as what *we* believe *we* should not do. We think evil is letting a child starve. Right? That's a usual concept, not many will argue that. However, animals in the wild sometimes leave their cubs to starve for a variety of reasons. We don't think they are evil. Evil isn't an absolute term, ti's a term that describe something very unique to human beings. We are forcing it on God, and then are surprised when it doesn't fit Him. ~moo

God is omnibenevolent to us. He is not omnibenevolent to our enemies, is he? (according to the bible, outright), so omnibenevolence is relative. In his "realm of existence" he might not be, but we're on a different set of "rules", and in ours, he is. It's like Superman. In Krypton he was a regular person, but on Earth he had "super powers". Sure, it's not a very good analogy because Superman is a fictional character, but I am raising the analogy to show what I mean, and I hope you bear with me to see my general point. We can ask it, but if your faith dictates that God exists in a completely different set of rules-of-reality than your own, then you cannot judge God's morals by your morals, which is what this question is doing. It's a moot question. ~moo

It's not to allow Her anything, it just is. God's existence is (supposedly) more complicated and more 'supreme' than ours, but also in a totally different realm of existence. If God is outside time and space, the rules that govern her existence are different than us mere humans who *are* inside time and space. Why, then, would "evil" be the same? No, we don't. We lose the ability to force God into our own definitions. And if God is assumed to define *us*, then we have no right to do that to begin with.

I shall play devil's advocate here and state a claim I often get myself when raising this issue: If we go by logical small steps, we begin by assuming there is a God (otherwise there's no "problem" of evil at all). Also, God is all good and all knowing and all powerful. God has created everything, including morality and including human beings. As such, then, our sense of morality does not necessarily equal that of God. That is, what we refer to as "bad" might not be bad when done by God, since he (or she!) is the one who created both the term bad and the concept of bad, and us humans who will behave according to said concept. Let me add an example (it's not very good, but it works to demonstrate one angle of this principle): Think of a parent who forbids their 10 year old child from seeing X-rated movies, such as porn. The reason the parent says that is to protect the child. For the child to see such movies, it's considered (GENERALLY) in society to be bad. However, it's not that bad for the parent, is it? So, if God is our figurative (and, according to belief, physical) creator/parent, then what is considered "bad" for us to do, is not necessarily something that is "bad" for him to do. I can think of a few problems I see with the above claim, but I thought it would be interesting to add that to the debate.

An atom is not the smallest thing we can see, though. We can't see it really, we can observe it using instruments -- and if that's our criteria, then we should go smaller. Inside the atom there's a nucleus which is MUCH smaller than the atom itself and electrons, which are even smaller. If you don't go by what we "see" but what we know of to be the smallest length, that would be Planck Length. ~moo

I don't think that's possible.

And we were trying to be so serious....

Time traveling magic bunnies.

Are you going to tell us that yesterday or did we hear about it tomorrow already?

By.......... ?