In this episode, the Drunk Ex-Pastors do their best to live up to their names (Christian introduces a new cocktail to the arsenal, while Jason does his part by drinking several margaritas before show time). After briefly revisiting the issue of police brutality, we let our inner Californians show by divulging some of our driving habits, including the theory that driving twice the speed limit reduces one’s chances of getting a speeding ticket by half (math is hard). The DXPs then share some tips for avoiding traffic fines and ignoring overly-inquisitive borders patrol guards, as well as give a bit of insight into why we ignore all of your Facebook friend-requests. We take a listener call about whether we are prejudiced against Islam, that most violent and backward of all religions (of course we’re not). Another caller tries to drag us into a debate over abortion, which bait we wisely slash fearfully refuse to take. Christian is biebered by New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s antiquated ways, while Jason’s bieber revolves around food and just how effing hard it is to eat sometimes.
Also, “Immediate Push-Button Murder”: Good or bad idea? Discuss…
Links from this episode:
Podcast #331: Sedition for Dummies
Podcast #262: Martyr Complexes and the “Gifts of the Spirit”
Podcast #477: Eclipses, Shatner, and Israel
Podcast #492: Aging Comics, Brats, and Politics
Jason and Christian,
About the Quaran:
The chapters of the Quran are called “Surahs” or “suras”. The chapters are arranged roughly in order of descending size and so the arrangement of the Qur’an is neither chronological nor thematic. What’s interesting though is that the suras themselves are put in two different categories: Meccan and Medinan. The Meccan scriptures are generally very beautiful and peaceful. On the other hand, the Medinan scriptures are very…. problematic to most western readers.
What’s so fascinating is how Muslims reconcile their texts. In Christian theology we believe the bible can contain no contradictions, and so we try to harmonize apparent contradictions. The Muslim doesn’t operate in the same way. Islam as a doctrine of abbrogation. This doctrine states that Allah can change His mind at any time, and so whatever he said LAST is the final word. Meaning last in order of time. Since the Medinan passages were written after the Meccan, the Medinan scriptures cancel out, or “abrogate” the many peaceful passages from mecca.
Islam also operates under tradition in a similar way to the RCC. Their tradition is informed in part by the “hadith” aka the many stories of the life of the prophet Mohammed. It is believed that these stories, and the example of Muhammeds companions and friends, are the prime examples of how to understand and live out the Quran. Again, the only problem is that these stories seem to give endless ammo to modern day terrorists. It is a commonly accepted principle in the Islamic world that the “gates of ijtihad,”or free inquiry into the Qur’an and Islamic tradition in order to discover Allah’s rulings, have been closed for centuries. In other words, Islamic teaching on principal matters has long been settled and is not to be called into question. (To be sure, there are reform-minded Muslims today who have called for a reopening of the “gates of ijtihad”so that Islam can be reinterpreted, but so far these calls have gone unheeded by the most important and influential authorities in the Islamic world).
In short, there is an enormous problem with Muslim theology.
Just so you can have more to talk about the next time it comes up. Be careful not to get your heads chopped off 🙂
PS
Do the muslims know about yalls suicide pact? The look of shock when they cut off one of your heads, and then the surviving person immediately kills himself before they can get to him!!! LOL
Ha! I got you to briefly talk about abortion. Point taken about wanting fewer abortions, and the hard right not actually being prolife (I definitely agree with that one). I’m prolife in every other stage of life, up to and including the death penalty. So maybe in this environment where it is legal, Democratic policies lead to fewer abortions (again, maybe). However, there have been nearly 55mil abortions in the US since 1973 – in NYC black women have more abortions than live births #blacklivesmatter. I think that the environment shouldn’t be taken as a given; it should and can be changed.
As for no one is pro-abortion, maybe not in the past. And I do believe that you guys and the vast majority of Democrats actually want fewer abortions. But there is a movement on the far left that are trying to change this tone; they are pushing people to actually celebrate their abortions – disgusting.
If it were up to me, I would trade every political issue for this one issue. You can have as many social programs as you want, introduce stricter gun control, whatever, just make abortion illegal again. You could probably make a case that if Republicans actually were to overturn Roe v Wade, that their party would collapse for a generation. I’m starting to think that they know that too, and they are just playing lip service to the pro-life with no real intention of taking the steps to make abortion illegal again. The pro-life are being used as pawns by Republicans.
I don’t actually want to have a pro-life v pro-choice debate here; I’m more frustrated by the 2 party system. I would much rather have a dozen smaller political groups split more sharply over what they actually believe is important. Also it would hurt to have a alternative voting system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
I mean: “Also it would [not] hurt to have a alternative voting system:”
Love the alternative vote, Lane! Thanks for sharing.
Alternate voting would only go partly to solve America’s issues, the other part of the issue is that the president plays both a legislative role as well as a representative role. We would be well served if we disconnected those two functions.
Matt Yglesias sums it up quite well here:
And there is a fringe on the right that would like to imprison women who have abortions, even if they were raped and/or gestating their brother/sister. There is a fringe on the right that stands in front of clinics screaming at the women who enter. There is a fringe on the right that promotes targeting and murdering abortion providers.
It’s a subject that generates strong emotional reactions.
Personally, I think every citizen with a high school diploma who is a registered voter should be entered into a Congressional service pool, where names are drawn at random every 2 or 6 years to fill seats in Congress, much like Jury Duty.
Alternatively, I’d like the GOP to regain its collective sanity and start giving us more folks like Teddy Roosevelt and fewer folks like Ted Cruz.
this podcast was a good one
this podcast was a good one
Ha! Not sure if that’s good or bad for us. 🙂
I have to take up and speak to Lanes comment that there is a movement within the far left to “celebrate” ones abortion. This isn’t true. What there is a movement to no longer shame the women who choose to have abortions and to talk about them openly, rather than hiding in the shadows for the legal choice they have made.
Karye Ann,
“This isn’t true. What there is a movement to no longer shame the women who choose to have abortions and to talk about them openly, rather than hiding in the shadows for the legal choice they have made.”
Right. The rallying cry use to be: “safe legal and rare.” The “rare” part is now problematic. Also, the same people don’t like the distinction between “good” and “bad” abortions. Who cares whether you aborted your child because it was a girl, it interfered with your vacation plans, or because your life was in danger. All should be equally looked upon. So in essence, when Jason and Christian said that they were not pro-abortion, and further implied that fewer abortions was a good thing, they were abortion shaming. Why? Because they implied that abortion is wrong. The mere idea that abortions should be reduced; that it is better if there are fewer, IS the “abortion shaming” in these people’s minds. It implies that there is something wrong with abortion.
Setting the actual abortion issue to the side. I do not believe people should be shamed. People should feel guilty about wrongs they have committed, but they shouldn’t be made to feel shame. Shame is directed at the person, an attempt to reduce their dignity. Guilt is directed at their actions. Everyone has dignity inherently, because they are created in God’s image. You can never give anyone dignity; you can only affirm it.
+1. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Some stats….
• The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate increased slightly between 1994 and 2008, but unintended pregnancy increased 55% among poor women, while decreasing 24% among higher-income women.[1,6]
• Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women.[3]
• Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[5]
— https://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/abortion-US/statsandfacts.html
By any measure, that’s pretty rare.
As usual, the problem with America isn’t really between the educated and the uneducated or religious vs non-religious but rather between the rich and poor.
Greg,
As usual, the problem with America isn’t really between the educated and the uneducated or religious vs non-religious but rather between the rich and poor.
I agree.
http://www.churchpop.com/2015/04/16/lutheran-satire-takes-on-richard-dawkins-and-its-hilarious/
Michelle Bachmann would like us all to know that the rapture and judgment are coming from the Lord because that evil Kenyan Mooslim in the White House isn’t bombing Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/michele-bachmann-obama-rapture_n_7104136.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Michelle Bachmann would like us all to know that the rapture and judgment are coming from the Lord because that evil Kenyan Mooslim in the White House isn’t bombing Iran.
She’s nucking futs.
On the subject of police/authority abusing their power. Have you seen this story? Sickening.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/fbi-admits-it-fudged-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades
Lane,
On the subject of police/authority abusing their power. Have you seen this story?
I saw that yesterday. So crazy. (And scary.)
You wonder why people can’t seem to trust the system set up to “protect” them.
Greg,
Here is a quick and dirty stat for you, the US population is ~319 million today, the number of abortions since roe v wade is ~55 million. Ignoring all other factors, that means we are missing almost 15% of our population. For every 6 people you see walking around, 1 is missing. That isn’t “rare”, that’s a holocaust. Especially, when you take into account who is having the abortions:
– African Americans are 12.6% population, but account for 30-35.4% of all abortions.
– Hispanics are 16.3% of the population, but account for 20-25%.
– On the other hand, non-Hispanic white are 63.7% of the population, and only account for 36-37.7.% of all abortions.
(For source of stats see: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/ )
So, yes it hits minorities and the poor at much higher rates. And yes, I’m all for any number of social programs and charities to support these families to undercut the perceived need for abortion. And yes, Republicans don’t seem to be in favor of these programs. Then I look at Democrats and they aren’t in favor of approving/nominating supreme court justices that might challenge roe v wade, nor passing legislation to limit abortion directly. I want all the above; so I’m stuck politically.
(BTW, regardless of what you believe about overpopulation, I hope we can agree that killing people is not an acceptable solution.)
I’ve already hashed this out with Kenneth, but first you would have to convince the majority of people that a zygote is a full and complete human being and should possess all of the rights of a human being, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon. People disagree about that point of when a fetus attains those rights and becomes human.
Hell, even parts of the bible (Exodus 21:22 and Numbers 5:11-31) can reasonably and arguably be read as seeing a fetus as not quite human yet and not worthy of the punishment that would come from killing a man. Numbers 5:11-31 is also arguably about a ritual designed to deliberately cause an abortion in a woman accused of infidelity.
And naturally, 1 in 5 pregnancies miscarry often before the woman is aware she is pregnant. Are all of those really possessed of souls? How exactly does that work? I know Catholics used to believe in limbo on the outskirts of hell where the unbaptized infants and children would go when they died, but do they also see that as a repository where deceased fetus’ go too?
comradedread,
“I’ve already hashed this out with Kenneth…”
I have no desire to debate, here anyway, at what point in human development, a human becomes human. Suffice it to say that I do not need to rely on a Bible to do it. Just take it for granted that I’m thoroughly convinced, through reasoned ethical, philosophical, and religious argument that my position is correct (as I will yours for the moment); it can’t just be brushed aside as meaningless. The point is that my position – which is more common than maybe you are willing to grant – is at least hampered by if not out-and-out exploited by our current political system.
Nice to see we’re hitting Godwin’s Law early this week. As comraderead partially points out, what proof is there that all these pregnancies would come to term? And since we know that the economically disadvantaged (as pretty much all these minorities we’re talking about are), we know that these kids will be born behind the eight ball. Their mothers will pretty much lack decent (or any) pre-natal care. And once all these millions of kids come out, their parents, if they’re around, will not be able to provide for them economically. It’s very easy to sit here and talk about how these Godless heathens should not commit “murder” and carry the child to term when you don’t have to take care of them.
Greg,
You’ve convinced me. If I child is inconvenient, we should have the right to kill them.
Sometimes I preach a so-so sermon and usually I forgive myself. Just sayin’.
The border crossing video…pretty sure it’s Pastor Steven Anderson. If you haven’t seen him, you’ve GOT to look at this. Watch it all. Unbelievably hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNCoevpt5TE
http://pix.iemoji.com/sbemojix2/0474.png
Greg and Comrade,
1. I think we would all agree that every human being, or every human person, has a right to life. I think we might also agree that this right is based on the dignity of the human person and not on skin color, gender, talent, etc.
2. I don’t think that any of you would deny that a zygote is a living member of the human species. Only days after conception there is a beating heart. The DNA is fully formed and everything from the babies eye color, height, weight, gender, etc is written in stone. The DNA is unique, the heart is beating, and another member of the human species has arrived. Are we all on the same page so far?
The only question left is “are these zygotes to be considered *persons* with a right to life?”. If you agreed with point 1 it’s hard for me to see how you would deny that a zygote has a right to life.
The philosopher Stephen Schwartz has argued that there are only four differences between born and unborn humans, and none of the differences justifies depriving unborn humans of the right to life. Schwartz uses the acronym SLED to summarize these differences:
Size
Level of development
Environment
Degree of dependency
Question: Why do SLED differences make someone less valuable—or not a someone at all? I would like one of you to defend your view of personhood and show why it is superior to the pro-life view based on universal human equality.
The problem with SLED for the prochoice advocate is that if you agree that these factors make someone *not* a person you would seem to be affirming that person hood can come in degrees. If a man is large, intelligent, rich, and independent, does this make him *more valuable as a person* than an illegal mexican immigrant mother with no job? What if someone only has three of the four? What if only two? I think the prolife position of universal human equality makes for a much more consistent view.
I’m loathe to get into this again, but let’s start a dialog.
Would you agree with the idea of self-defense? If someone threatens to harm you, do you have the right (not necessarily the moral right) but the legal right to defend yourself to the point of taking your assailant’s life?
Comrade,
Yes I do agree that one has the right to protect themselves from criminal intent.
it would be nice though if you gave some kind of response to my above comment before taking the conversation in a different direction…
We’ll get there.
So can we, from a principle of self-defense, extrapolate that a woman can ethically have an abortion if the pregnancy presents a threat to her life?
Grabbing popcorn…
Comrade,
“So can we, from a principle of self-defense, extrapolate that a woman can ethically have an abortion if the pregnancy presents a threat to her life?”
It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person. However, I think it is ethical, in an attempt to save a woman’s life, to do a procedure that’s goal is to treat the condition, even if an unintended result might be the death of the child. For example, radiation treatment of cancer of the uterus while pregnant. Think shooting a missile at a terrorist knowing that an innocent bystander may also be killed; the goal was not to kill the innocent victim. Shooting a missile at the innocent person is wrong, and so is dismembering your child.
Comrade,
If the mother must be treated for some desease or illness and the child dies indirectly from the procedure that would be permissible. Ectopic pregnancy for example. In this situation, the baby would have died anyways and is only indirectly killed to save the mothers life. However, if the baby must be killed directly just to save the mither that would be immoral.
For example, it would be wrong for a mother to kill her born child (even if that child were going to die anyway) because the mother needed a heart transplant, and her child had the only compatible donor match. In this case, the child’s death is direct and serves as a means to save the mother and so is immoral; whereas, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, a doctor treats the damaged fallopian tube and the child dies indirectly, which is not immoral. The child’s death is not used as a means to save his mother but is a side effect of removing some of his mother’s damaged tissue.
This is similar to the cases of two pilots: One bombs a missile silo and indirectly kills children who live nearby, while the other bombs an elementary school in order to harm enemy morale. The former action is moral, because the children’s deaths are unintended, and bombing a missile silo in war is not wrong. (If it were always wrong to indirectly kill human beings, then any army that used human shields could never be defeated in a moral way, which seems absurd.) The pilot who kills the children in the school does something directly immoral, because he uses the children’s deaths as a means to discourage his enemies, and human beings should always be treated as ends and not means. Since the unborn are human beings, they cannot be killed to save the life of the mother, but the mother may also not be killed in order to save the life of the child. Instead, doctors must do what they can to save both. This includes treating any disease affecting the mother (such as removing a cancerous uterus), even if it kills the child indirectly. Finally, remember that the vast majority of abortions are not performed to save the mother’s life but to end the child’s life….
Satisfied?
Why? We’ve already established that you believe it is ethical to kill another human being that threatens your life.
Apples and oranges. The principle we’re discussing isn’t “Is it okay to kill someone to use them to save my life” it is “Is it okay to kill someone who threatens my life.” But perhaps my original question was vague. Let’s go to Lane’s objections and we’ll see if we can clarify the moral stance on self-defense.
Okay, let’s think about that again in the terms of self-defense.
Would it still be an ethical act of self-defense to kill someone who threatened your life if they did not know they were threatening your life? Since we’re using hypotheticals, let’s say a mentally impared young man has found a loaded gun and is pointing it at you (or other people) thinking he is playing a game with you. Would it be okay to use lethal force to stop him? Would we fault a police officer for doing so?
Comrade,
I did not say that it was OK to kill someone who threatened your health. I said it was OK to protect yourself from criminal intent or aggression. I do not think it is OK to kill someone who is incident threatening your life.
For example, let’s say I am crossing the street and a school bus is driving down the road. Unknown to both the driver and myself, there is an ice patch on the street. The driver sees me, pumps the breaks accordingly, but skids on the ice. If I possessed a grenade launching tank destroyer, would I have the right to pull it out and blast the bus to pieces just to save myself? All parties are innocent, and no one wants to die. I would say that it would be immoral for me to pull out the tank destroyer, but that’s just me.
Comrade,
Why? We’ve already established that you believe it is ethical to kill another human being that threatens your life.
But it isn’t okay to kill an innocent bystander.
Since we’re using hypotheticals, let’s say a mentally impared young man has found a loaded gun and is pointing it at you (or other people) thinking he is playing a game with you. Would it be okay to use lethal force to stop him? Would we fault a police officer for doing so?
It would be ethical to use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop him. Let’s say in response to your hypothetical situation, the officer decided to not disarm or tase, but to mutilate and dismember the young man limb from limb, or crack open his skull and vacuum out his brain. Or maybe the officer calls in an airstrike, that levels an entire block. Tell me, at what point does the officer’s actions become so disproportionate to the situation that the response itself becomes unethical.
So bring me out of the world of hypotheticals and tell me a real situation that calls for a doctor to directly kill your child to save the mother.
And while you’re at it, answer Kenneth question; after all he did ask first.
Comrade,
If we had a way to safely remove an unborn baby at any stage of development and artificially bring her to term, would abortion still be ethical in your view?
Yes, we are all waiting for you to “get around to it” as promised. Even if you can dream up some tough cases, these would only excuse a very tiny number of abortions. If I agree to join you in advocating for the legalization of extremely tough cases (you know, the ones where a 7 year old is raped by her father and then has to abort to save her own life) will you then join me in advocating for the illegalization of all other abortions?
LOL. You’re horrible Christian.
Since I was also one of the people that the question was addressed to previously, I guess I will step in and provide my two cents. To be honest, I have far less patience than comraderead and the rest of you fine gents to come up with these tortuous arguments about self defense, etc etc. Innocent people die every single day for no more good reason than God woke up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning. I will always be for the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Full stop. Call me immoral or uncaring of innocent lives but I care about the person who is living much more than a hypothetical person who will show up in nine months. But beyond that, it is frankly not my place to dictate to another human being what to do with their body.
Time to crack out that bio book player, 7 year olds aren’t sexually mature enough to have children.
😉
Greg,
“Innocent people die every single day for no more good reason than God woke up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning.”
Well, I don’t get to murder innocent people just because innocent people die. Let’s have no morals at all then.
“I will always be for the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Full stop.”
Yes, do what you want with your body until it affects another body – especially if it kills another body. It’s not just her body at stake. Full stop.
“Call me immoral or uncaring of innocent lives but I care about the person who is living much more than a hypothetical person who will show up in nine months.”
I care about BOTH of the living people. There is no hypothetical person, I was once one of those unborn people living in my mother’s womb waiting to meet my mother face-to-face. And quite frankly I would not have wanted my body to be ripped limb from limb and thrown away like some piece of garbage. The “mother’s womb”, used to be an analogy of a warm safe loving place – no longer!
The more I think about how democrats think of themselves as the compassionate ones, the ones who speak up for the downtrodden, the voiceless of society, who care about the injustices others ignore; the more I’m shocked that democrats aren’t the pro-life side. Seriously, who would you expect to label a group as “not people”? Who would you expect to be completely uncompassionate about the lives of the weakest among us? Who would you expect to advocate for the right to kill for convenience sake? Democrates? SMH.
With that, I’m off to bed #eastcoast.
Greg,
I hope you see how your comment is begging the question. By saying things like “I support the right for women to do what they want with their body” you are assuming that a fetus is a “hypothetical person” and not an actual person. If I may direct you to my first comment, which has so far received zero responses…
Well, I did say we’ll get around to it. But I was hoping to start from a place of common ground between us and reach a point of divergence. But alright, I will preface this by stating simply that I believe the Christian ethic is, barring any life threatening or special circumstances, to do unto the fetus as you would wish would be done to you.
However, we do not live in a Christian nation, and we do live under a secular law and constitution.
That is the question we are trying to answer. You cannot assume the premise is true.
What are the necessary conditions for personhood?
Is it simply DNA? Well, no. My arm is full of cells that contain human DNA, and yet they are not individually accorded the status of personhood. I will never be accused of murder if I must amputate my arm.
Is it a soul? We have no scientific evidence for the existence of a soul, so we would have to prove that humans possess such a thing first. And then there is the question of which religious tradition we should adhere to when discussing the concept of the soul, because there is divergence between Christianity, Judaism, and Eastern Religions. (As I’ve previously mentioned, the Mosaic Law (and some rabbinic traditions) arguably do treat fetuses as distinct from children that have been born. And though I do not find the morality of the Mosaic law to be a reliable source, others do. I digress…)
Is it self-awareness or sentience? Perhaps. But then we face the difficult questions of those with severe mental disabilities. Are they still persons worthy of rights? If yes, then it would be difficult to deny a fetus the same rights.
If no, then we open the quandary of putting people with severe mental disabilities to death. If the answer is ‘it depends’ then we must define what level of mental capacity qualifies one as possessing sentience.
Is it viability? I think this would be a contributing factor. We allow life support to be withdrawn from a person whose body is no longer able to sustain itself without aid and we do not qualify that as unethical or immoral (or perhaps I should not assume that.) Of course, then we must resolve whether withdrawing artificial means of life support would be comparable to withdrawing natural means of life support in utero. I suspect that will be an interesting discussion.
Is it birth? Most likely not. There are studies that show that a late term fetus does possess awareness of its environment, recognizes its parents’ voices, and can experience and comprehend pain. So the transition, if it exists, is earlier than this point. (Which is also, incidentally why most aborton laws in the United States prohibit aborton after a point in the second trimester barring extreme circumstances.)
And then there is the question of ownership of one’s body and whether one can be ethically compelled to give up self-ownership to another and, if so, to what degree. I think this libertarian view is probably one of the least defensible positions, but I think it too merits discussion.
We’re not discussing the method of killing the threat, but we can assume in our hypotheticals that it is you and person threatening your life. No need to bring other persons into the scenario. All other means of diffusing the situation have been tried. The person is still holding and waving a potentially loaded gun at you even if he doesn’t realize the seriousness of the situation. You are armed. Is it ethical to shoot first if you fear for your life?
I’m not trying to probe fringe cases, I’m trying to start from a place of common ground and see how far we can get from point A to point B before we diverge and reach an impasse. I thought the self-defense scenario would be the most likely point of commonality between us. But we’ve already reached divergence and I’m trying to explore the reasons why with you.
Thus far what I’m getting is that you think it’s okay to kill someone if you believe they will kill you and you are certain that they know that their actions are wrong, but it is ethically wrong to kill someone who you believe will kill you but you are certain they do not know their actions are wrong.
Lane & Kenneth,
Hmm, ya, I guess I did kind of skip over what seems to be an important point that comraderead has just addressed. I don’t accept that a zygote is a person so for me, there has been no rights trampled upon by the woman.
Comrade,
I’m not sure if we have reached a point of divergence or if you are just playing devils advocate? Your last comment was a giant laundry list of speculations, but you didn’t really answer the question.
1. When does a human being become a “person”?
2. defend your view of personhood and show why it is superior to the pro-life view based on universal human equality.
3. Explain whether or not you would take out the tank destroyer and kill the proverbial truck driver who would otherwise crash into you.
Until you and greg supply some kind of opinion on these it’s hard to understand where we are at in the convo.
Im with
Dick
This was sort of the point of my musings in my previous post. What does it mean to be a person?
At some point in the distant past, our ancestors were animals, then the next generation through mutation or through an ‘uplifting of God’ became persons.
And your scenario really isn’t comparable to mine. Both because the solution demands a deliberate escalation which will definitely cause collateral damage, and because it involves a rational individual with the capacity for self-preservation and the knowledge of what is happening to him.
your mom begs my question ! laugh out loud
Comrade,
OK, I was just hoping you would be willing to put out an answer. It’s a difficult question. Consider this possibility as explained by a philosopher who follows in the tradition of Aquinas
If it were easy, the debate would have been settled.
Some comment on that quote:
He assumes the nature of the soul is biological and not transcendent.
If the essentials of man as a rational animal are not present in a fetus, how can one then assume that a soul (or psyche) is? His argument seems to be that because they will be there at some point in the future development, absent any circumstances which might impair them, that we should assume that they are there in a zygote and present.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against the potentiality of rationality, locomotion, and other human characteristics being present in a fetus or zygote, but the question is whether in the current absence of these things we should consider a zygote (which in no way beyond its DNA really resembles a fully functional human being) should be considered a fully functional human being with all the rights and responsibilities thereof and that we should therefore limit and reject a woman’s right to self-autonomy because of it.