Galen's Soul (SYTO's thread [Fine, "Philosophy Thread"])

No, I'm just a cynical 26yo who puts a lot of store by Mark Twain's observation that:

Please, forgive any overt wryness on my part.

 

Classy opening there, Ferne; classy opening.

Fair warning, if you want to actually argue Christian theology, I don't mess around. I see faaaaaar too much shoddy exposition of biblical texts (both Scripture and associated texts) these last 13 years to have much truck with it. So, if you really want to go down this road, either shape up or ship out.

Anyway. Enough being pretentious.

1. The God of the OT and NT are one and the same (unless you're actually engaging in Jewish theology--in which case the NT is a collection of insight (mixed with the occasional piece of heresy) by the rabbi Yeshua bar Yusuf and the deluded writings of some of his disciples who couldn't deal with him dying and, instead, decided to stage a long-running hoax that they remained so committed to that most of the original hoaxers were executed/tortured to death for refusing to admit that they'd just made the whole thing up).
2. What translation did you pull that quote from? If you're going to engage in biblical scholarship then ensuring you use a variety of quality translations and commentaries (as well as returning to the original languages for difficult passages) is essential. Either pick a good translation or post in the original language--not some abominable half-cast of non-Latin languages using Latin characters.

I stand by that comic I posted. If you've got the impression that the Bible is rife with contradiction, etc. then you're just highlighting your own ignorance (not trying to say this in a mean way, just stating what's what--the deeper you dig into this text, the better and better it holds together).

 

Any translation that comes in 14C English is not acceptable for any kind of honest attempt to grapple with the texts. Either find some decent source texts (I can recommend a few if you're stuck) or stop trolling.

 

Really, I don't mind discussing theology here. I've a good deal of training/expertise/knowledge in the area (particularly Christian theology [almost 14 years study], as that's my speciality, but I can also do some Islamic stuff [2-3 years study] and a smattering of a number of other faith-systems [sporadic dabbling in study over the years]) and would happily bring my experience to bear on any questions/ponderings/wonderings people might have about things they've (personally) only skimmed the surface of.

Seriously. Knowledge is only half as entertaining if you keep it all to yourself.

 

Also:
@PUNK123 - Really, you have two choices:

1. Take my words for what they are: the honest, earnest communications of a bright intelligence who fiercely wants to know, to learn, to share (and expects that you'll meet him halfway); or,
   
2. You can read into them whatever insult and condescension you like and think me baide.

Either way, I guess I'm done tying myself up in knots trying to justify and explain myself. It's exhausting, infuriating, and, quite frankly, it feels pointless.


If you want to think me condescending, fine. So be it. I'm sure it's your prerogative to presume to assign me whatever attitude makes you feel good about yourself. (Hint: here, I'm just annoyed; not being patronising :v)

{edit}
Also, also:
@Fernegulus, fwiw, I don't particularly appreciate being taken for a ride/trolled (I mean, quoting an obviously defunct translation of the Bible? Really?); but if you want to genuinely expand your understanding on a theological topic (and not just 'bait the Christian', hurhur) then I'll do my best to explain clearly and concisely.

 

...

Anyway, moving on, anyone here actually sat down and thought through the actual pragmatics of trying to draw a reasonable line as to where personhood begins? (And ends, I guess, but I personally haven't thought through that one yet; whereas I've done the "where does 'life' begin" question as a back-and-forth with my father-in-law a while ago).

I'm not talking about any of that "pro-life", or "pro-choice" crap. Both sides are clearly for life and choice; the real question is actually where they draw the line between "not accorded the epithet 'human life'" and "accorded the epithet 'human life'".

As I said, I've given this some careful thought (both from a Christian doctrinal angle, and from a generalist/secular angle) but seeing as I'm literally minutes away from being kicked out of the library I thought I'd put the question out there for people to ponder and maybe offer some thoughts; and then I'll come back an share a few of my own conclusions.

So: where could/might the line between "young human" and "not young human" get drawn? And why? Are there any edge-cases or special considerations that need to be taken into account?

NB: a few important things to keep in mind:

1. Remember to clearly state which theoretical framwork you're using (e.g. Christian, secular, whatever) and then stick to it!
2. If people post something that's clearly not a carefully weighed/considered opinion (i.e. if they're just spouting off pro life/choice bs propaganda; OR if they're being a totally insensitive berk--in what is obviously a sensitive issue) then I will happily nuke their post and/or mute them from the thread for a week or two. I'm serious. This topic could be really worthwhile, but it also has the potential to get ugly--so everyone just tread nice and softly and we'll get along fine.

 

Excellent! A bold stance taken and reason given for it--and the requisite humility to know when your bold stance might be uncomfortable for some. Exactly what we're looking for here!

Tell me, @PUNK123, do you think there are any special circumstances under which the mother (and/or father--guys often get left out of the debate [or even deliberately excluded from the debate], simply because their physical involvement is one step removed--if a reason is given at all) retains the right to choice?

What about medical emergencies (where it's the mother's life or the child's?

What about cases of rape? Or incest?

What about cases where the child is severely deformed (physically and/or mentally)?

These are hard questions that need answering if we're going to answer the main question fully...

 

Firstly, I don't know where to stick a framework. I guess some of my point of view comes from Christianity, but also not. Somewhere around there, then, especially since it's not exactly a black-and-white situation.

I'd say a human foetus can be classed as human, because, biologically, it is one. Termination of a child should be allowable throughout the early stages of it's growth, say, up until the point where it could viably survive outside the womb, which seems to be around a 50% chance of survival when born after 5 months (24 weeks). After that, adoption would be my go to solution, unless the child would suffer from severe mental or physical deformations with the potential to drastically worsen quality of life, in which case the choice is up to the mother.
If it's the mother or the child, then always the mother.
Incest? If it was voluntary, then I don't particularly relish the idea of it, but same rules should apply.

Does this discussion imply that only humans can be persons?

 

Not necessarily (although, topic for another day, I do feel there are some pretty compelling reasons to grant personhood to humans and not animals, plants, minerals); for the sake of simplicity though, let's just assume for argument's sake that personhood is restricted to humans.

Also, you missed out rape; which is a classic/textbook exception that people raise.

Also, also, out of interest, Hella: why does it matter whether the foetus is viable outside of the womb? I mean, considering that (outside of external intervention like, say, an abortion) it would be reasonable in most cases to assume that the foetus would be staying inside the womb until it was ready to make egress of its own volition?