xepherys

Since many religious folk feel abortion is wrong, I've started thinking a good deal about the nature of the bible and what it says and what many Christians, specifically, seem to say about such matters. The reason abortion is wrong, in their eyes, seems to be that it's against god's will, or that we are somehow disgracing the "divine spark" that creates life. However, when a puppy is born, is this not the same divine spark? The spark of life? It seems to me that for this to be the case, animals would also have to have souls... something the bible says is not the case. At any rate, I digress... This argument is also used in regards to true human cloning. That it's an afront to god by way of us foregoing said "divine spark". What are your opinions?

Personally, I believe that all life has the same ethereal, intangible, spiritual base. Humans are nought but animals anyhow. I know many of you here are, like myself, no Christian, or even classified by a strict religion. However, I'd be interested to hear the thoughts and opinions of all of you, regardless of your particular religious viewpoint. As for cloning, I think that we are not foregoing anything. That by creating life one way versus another does not prevent it from being life. From a religious standpoint, if we CAN do it, god has allowed us to, and therefore it is his will. *shrug* But again, I have more spiritual, less god-based beliefs, so perhaps I'm missing a fundamental aspect here (though I am reasonably well versed in theology as it's a topic of interest to me).

Zeraph

I am not in the religious camp mentioned above, but I would think that whatever happens is God's will . . . meaning if we learn how to clone then that's OK, if someone has an abortion, God's will.

I just finished reading the rest of your post, and yeah basically what you already said I agree. We are not taking away anything special by cloning or making life. I don't think souls exist in the way we would normally think. There's a buddhist arguement I think, that goes something like, the soul is considered eternal, everlasting, right? The soul is a core self, our truest identity, right? Therefore the soul is a type existence, right? Basically another life after death. And what is existence? How do we experience such? Sensations. We feel emotions, we feel the wind, we see light, etc.

So the soul could be three things, 1) sensation 2) no sensation 3) the faculty for sensation. Sensation would make the most sense, without it can we really exist? Think of what you would be with NO sensation, no sight, no smell, no touch, no hearing, no nothing. We wouldn't have intelligence, our personality couldn't have developed, etc. But how can the soul be sensation if our sensations are always changing? Yet the soul is supposed to be constant, eternal. Sensations are cleary not, if the soul is sensation then it cannot be eternal.

If the soul is not sensation (we've already been over) can there really be any existance?

The faculty for sensation, faculty must depend on something else. For instance, if I am to have the skill of riding unicorns, unicorns must exist for the skill to. Obviously there are no unicorns, therefore I cannot have the skill to ride them. Therefore if the soul were faculty for sensation then it must depend on something else to exist like our bodies in which to sense from. But our bodies can be taken away, die. So without sensation, or an everlasting host so to speak, there can not really be any faculty for such.

So it goes something like that, I am going from memory here, so sorry if you know the arguement and I butchered it. But I think it's pretty close.

LeviticusMky

Where do we draw the line?

Is not life simply an expression of molecular complexity?

It's easy to call an insect alive, but what about a personal computer? They have about the same level of complexity and processing power, yet we consider a computer "nuts and bolts" whereas the insect has some divine force within it that engenders it the label "alive."

The whole idea of life having some "spark" that is not present in other forms of matter is a construction of the human need to feel special, and in no way makes sense in the real world. Life, as in all other things, is a gradient, a slope.

__________________
Fact: Global levels of Oxygen are depleting.
Fact: Global levels Carbon Dioxide are increasing.

(icy hell)Mars<------EARTH------>Venus(burning hell)

nezmot

Interesting, an insect has life, and yet, would it be easier to crush a bug, or smash up a computer?

Complexity has value, whether it is living or not. A well crafted piece of metal, like a watch, or a computer will each have a value based on the amount of artistry and technical expertise that went into building it.

To the OP, I'd suggest that ALL people think that, on balance, not having an abortion is better than having one. No-one is suggesting that an abortion is a 'good' thing. Sometimes, perhaps, it might be considered necessary (choose your own conditions, and argue about them elsewhere if you want) But I would agree that there are different reasons that lie behind where the line is drawn.

I'll agree that the 'divine spark' reason doesn't make sense to me, because of my view that people and animals are equivalently 'soulful' (or rather, are equivalently non-soulful) - which opens up the question of whether my carniverous tastes can be ethically justified.

In answer to that, I suppose I have to submit to the idea that life is not sacrosanct - it should still be respected, and not taken lightly - but it is not the be all and end all - whether it is human or animal. And further, that complexity is something to be valued too. We should preserve art, architecture, sculpture and all other kinds of human artifacts, because each of them has a value above and beyond their component parts.

RedbeardUH

It isn't just life, its human life. Animals, in the bible, don't go to heaven. Plus it also has to do with the new testaments focus on youth as being closer to god than anyone else. Jesus was big on protecting the defenseless.

With the cloning issue it seems to me that most arguments aren't against cloning in general, but only the cloning of humans. Any argument against cloning is more of a slippery slope argument at best.

That's great that you think all life has some ethereal/intangible base but without any evidence how can you say that? Evidence has to be more than something you 'feel' is true. And if life+spirit is no different than life then the +spirit is equal to zero.

"An object without predicates [identifying features] is no object to me" -Feuerbach

Argument, I think, can be summed as such:

1We can only do what god lets us
2God would only let us do good things
3We can cause an abortion
Therefore abortions must be good things.

A valid argument but not a sound one. There's plenty of scriptural evidence that we can do evil as well as good.


For a very long but interesting argument on abortion try googling Judith Thompson and her essay on why abortions should be legally allowed and are not immoral.

__________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you

-Friedrich Nietzsche

MageB420666

I personally don't care if abortions, cloning, gay marriages, etc. are moral or not. All I care about is the fact that a good portion of the United States seems set on forcing their view of morality upon me. [/whateverthehellthatstatementwas]

In terms of any lifeform being better than another, I say bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, we're all just a bunch of molecular reactions. The only thing that gives precedence to one lifeform over another is perception(ex. I love my mom, but I view a person walking their dog with about as much importance as the dog). Yes, I know this is a very selfish and ego-centric point of view. But be realistic, everyone views the world in the same way, although not necessarily to the same extent(i.e. they view the stranger as more important than the dog, but less important than their mother). We would all save our mother or loved one before a complete stranger.

I see cloning as no different a way of creating life than artificial insemmination, or in vitro fertilization. They are all methods of medically injecting genetic material into an egg. Cloning is just creating a twin. In my opinion the soul/spirit of all creatures forms within them as they become an independant creature, be it a single bacteria, plant or animal. I also believe there are different type of spirits, some form communally, some individually. Please don't ask me to elaborate, It's really complicated, and I'll probably just confuse you, myself, and make small children cry.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

xepherys

Well, we have no proof of the majority of issues in the bible as well. It's great that some believe in the Holy Trinity, but without any evidence how can you say that? I'm just saying...

It is God's will that we do evil as well as good. In fact, I believe there is a passage in the bible that says humans cannot be good if they cannot be evil (not exactly, but that's the premise). In the Christian sense, this is why Jesus was born to save us from our sins... that no human is without sin and no human is expected to live a life free of sin. Since the very first humans were put on Earth, humans have sinned. *shrug* Some things are also neither good nor evil, in and of themselves, but are dependent on intent. Killing is not good, but if you kill in self defense it is not evil either.

At any rate, I make the argument without moral or religious clouding (I'm not a Christian, nor am I a part of any organized religion that has beliefs counter to Christianity). Just the way I think.

BigBen

The fundamental aspect you missed here is that God gave us free will. We can choose to walk away from God, and never return. We can choose to be evil, and become everything that God is against. We CAN worship false idols, murder, covet neighbour's wives, lie, steal, work on the sabbath, dishonour our parents, take the Lord's name in vain. All of this is possible.

God has allowed us to, but it is specifically against his will. Yes, I am being blunt with the ten commandments, but you get my meaning.

Just because we can do it, doesn't mean it should be done.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Sultana

Well, it's pretty darn easy for me to crash a computer.

Initially, my thought is that it's the bug's will to live, and will to procreate that sets it apart from a computer. Also, a human, or a collection of humans, dictated every single aspect of any computer's capabilities. That's not true with offspring. If a computer does not function to the parameters intended, then it's a flaw, not a personality trait, heh.

I don't see cloning as disgracing the divine, it's no worse that artificial insemination, which in it's own time caused controversy, but by now is an accepted alternative to "natural" conception. But I don't see any benefit to cloning at all...except for maybe sheep or something that produces the "perfect" wool, I dunno.

Regarding abortion, I myself believe that life is valuable, should be protected, and that at a point abortion is snuffing out life. At what point is a collection of cells, of potential, life? For me, it's brainwaves. No one has ever returned from being brain dead, and that's a point where it's generally accepted that it's OK to turn off life support, etc. So when brainwaves start (and I have to confess, I don't know when that is for human fetuses) to me is when life starts.

The thing is, do we definitively know FOR CERTAIN when brain wave activity starts, or could it be that our instrumentation is just too limited to detect it before that point?

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

Willravel

Man is not just another animal to God, but we are his finest work. We were created in His image, we were left in charge of all His stuff, we were given free will, we were saved by His son's sacrafice. We're good people, in His eyes. According to many Christian faiths, animals do not have souls. So, because we are better than everything else and we have souls, we are set apart. That is where the "divine spark"", or the bestowing of a soul, comes into play. This is what I call the biblical uncertianty primciple: if there is an unknown in matters of spirituality, one should always err to the side of caution. This means that because we don't know when the soul enters the body or grows or whatever, we should assume that it does when life begins: conception. The spermatazoa combines with egg (neither of which are alive) and become a zygote (which is alive).

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

I think cloning is an issue today as transplants were an issue a hundred years ago. It's a matter of people being unable to define where a soul lies and what the nature is of a soul. Is a clone without a soul? Well of course not. Twins with patching phenotypes and genotypes each have souls, so it's the same difference, IMHO.

josobot

Suggest your "believers" in today's science read " Madam Bovary". The natural way has produced amazing results. Not only is the human species at a standsill from an evolutionary standpoint. Science seems now to want to profit by degrading the species.

nezmot

josobot, what do you mean? What does Madam Bovary tell us? The natural way as opposed to what? The human race is not at a stands(t)ill from an evolutionary standpoint, and exactly how is 'science' (being an abstract collection of concepts and methodologies) capable of profiting from, or even degrading the species? And exactly what do you mean by degradation anyway?

josobot

Dr. Bovary planned to cure a cripple and become rich and famous. Neither happened. For any species to endure it is most useful to retain some original pure stock and the natural variants. Consider the potato famine. That is why old species of plants are kept in a seed bank. Today medical science knows there is big profits in repairing defective humans and aborting perfectly good ones. The defective ones only naturally can be expected to reproduce and as they do, provide more clients. There is no easy answer, but there is a problem. Humans are too interconnected to actually evolve into new subsets.

josobot

To become theological for the original question, let me present my interpretation of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God perhaps is all life that is observable in the universe, the Son refers to Human Life (that is most God-like) and the Spirit is that pre-material existence of life before it becomes physical and biologically present. Life is all that matters, that is, even if things just exist, that is trivial unless the is a living thing to observe the things and use them . I grant some awareness to all living things, but man is truly in a special God-like class. To have lived as a man and be dead still beats being any other living thing we know of.

nezmot

I'm still not sure I understand - what has that story got to do with this topic? Are you worried about us killing off our 'pure stock'? Because that's simply not happening. If anything, it's going the other way around, with a much wider, and more diverse range of human genetic material being passed on to new generations. 'Perfectly good' humans generally don't get aborted. And the reproduction of 'damaged' or 'defective' humans is a good thing for our long-term survival in terms of spreading out our genetic diversity (consider examples such as the correspondence between sickle-cell anemia and immunity to malaria)

No easy answer? What's the question? There is no problem. Humans, no matter how connected or not are quite capable of evolving into new subsets - but, according to the nature of the way evolution naturally works, we are currently exploiting a period of smooth fitness landscape. This process allows for future fitness maxima to be more effectively reached once the landscape roughens up some time in the future (due to meteorite, nuclear holocaust, ebola pandemic, global warming, or some other arbitrary catastrophe) Evolution is doing perfectly fine, thankyou very much.

Zeraph

Josobot-youre welcome to your opinions, but stop posting nonsense about evolution if you don't even understand it.

Oh and please stop personifying and generalizing about science.

Thanks.

tecoyah

Nothing in science is ever certain....but they can be pretty sure:

"Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think. "

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

josobot

My concern is the topic. To believe abortion is unnatural does not take faith. To believe that widespread abortion is natural, or that capital punishment is evil and not mere common sense; that is a leap of faith. We all accept that there is a "spark" of life on earth and probably elsewhere in the universe. To try to define that "spark" merely in evolutionary terms seems inappropriate...origin of species is not origin of life. I also believe some life is better than other life. The thousands of years lifespan of some tree does not compare to the 100 year span of a human. Perhaps some scholar out there will explain to me the physics of life. SETI seems to be showing an eerie silence out there.

tecoyah

Most will not bother to share such personal understanding of what life means to them, as the likelyhood of acceptance is limited by Dogma. I would just stick with what you have stated above.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Vaultboy

Cloning is not a cut-and-dried case. The morality involved is complicated. The legalities are even more complex (which I think is atually the overriding factor i.t.o. why cloning is not permitted.)

Religion aside, I think you are naive if you think that a clone will ever have the same status as a human, when even human life is costed differently depending on economic, racial and religious status. All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. YOur statement that humans are merely animals is biologically correct, but also naive. I am a conservation ecologist, and I tell you that the needs of people will always overide the needs of the environment or other species. The rapid rate at which development is causing extinctions should convince you of this fact. Even if a human is an animal, we're the original, and a clone will always be a copy. Its the same as how the airport or the bank prefers original documentation of your proof of life instead of a fax/copy thereof.


From a religious perspective, the fundemental flaw in your reasoning here is countered by arguments for FREE WILL. Just because God gave us the ability to do something, doesn't mean that going ahead and doing it is in fact exercising "God's Will". I dont even think examples are neccesary.

Your post seems to discuss cloning on two levels: Cloning organs - vs transplants. On this matter I agree with you. IN fact, I would support cloning organs if we do not modify genetic stuctures. But human nature desires improvement, and soon human existence and social stature will be based on genetic perfection, which is definately a step down from what we've achieved sofar in terms of human rights.

__________________
"Failing tastes of bile and dog vomit. Pity any man that gets used to that taste."