V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/04/85)
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality References: <232@usl.UUCP> <3300001@uiucdcsp.UUCP> Newsgroups: net.abortion I agree that the infusion of the soul would be the definitive test for humanity . However as you pointed out we can't prove, PHYSICALLY, the existance of the human soul. This is necessarily the area of theology and philosophy and while valid to solving the problem for most of us, will be defined away by much of the opposition as irrelavent, religious drivel. When the opposition does not recognize meta-physical arguments or super- natural arguments then we must resort to less than complete and less than satisfactory arguments based on social principles and "common sense observation ". What I take for granted the opposition disbelieves, sometimes violently, and this is NOT any dogma which I hold to. The obvious superiority of mankind being an example. Why care?? SIMPLE!! Erroneous belief can become public policy. I really wish we could use the argument for the infusion of soul, EFFECTIVELY, but in this group we can't, except to other Theists. This does NOT invalidate it however, and it should be one more argument for our side in the wider discussion. BTW as far as I know the Roman Church has not defined the exact time of infusion of the soul after conception, although it is obviously there at birth. Have any of the other Churches? Please post citations. It would be helpful if the opposition would define what it would accept as valid, rational discourse, and list those premises it finds as acceptable. For someone arguing from a metaphysical view such as myself, we can and must accept physical evidence which would contradict our position. We have difficulty in discussing and or refuting criticisms which consists of a simple "Your assumptions and premises are silly and obviously invalid, because I can't measure them or understand them. They cannot be true." My analogy is trying to prove the sky is blue to a person wearing colored lenses and then having that person tell me that his filtered view of the sky is correct and that I am wrong because I insist that he take off the glasses. It tends to be frustrating. As for this group being a ghetto for pro-lifers...it wasn't always so. Right Paul Dubuc? Marchionni
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (02/07/85)
[..........] >My analogy is trying to prove the sky is blue to a person wearing colored >lenses and then having that person tell me that his filtered view of the sky >is correct and that I am wrong because I insist that he take off the glasses. >It tends to be frustrating. >Marchionni What color of glasses are YOU wearing? Doyle