• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life Begins at Conception

Status
Not open for further replies.
McBell

McBell

Unbound
smokydot said:
I'm responding to AxisMundi's questions on human life at conception and the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

(So who's not up to speed? :eek:)
Click to expand...
wow.
And I thought the subject of the thread was if there was any Biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception.
Of course, I got that impression from the OP, but hey, with over 800 posts and nothing to support the idea that "life begins at conception" is Biblical....
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
If you are referring to the syllogism presented: i.e.,

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

then a demonsration of how the syllogism is not self-evident and basic human reasoning would be in order.
Click to expand...

First of all, if it were self evident, you wouldn't need a "syllogism."

Second, human rights are more important than the actions of the state, so it would need to come first as the major premise.

1) Human life is a basic human right
2) A responsibility of a humane State is to protect human rights
3) It is a responsibility of a humane State to protect human life

But this syllogism gets us absolutely nowhere in the debate over human life beginning at conception or how far the State should go to protect human life.

For example, it says nothing about the State's right to abuse the health and safety of women in the name of protecting a fetus.

It also says nothing about the State's involvement in war, economic sanctions that deprive poor people of food (eg., North Korea and Palestine), and capital punishment.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
I'm responding to AxisMundi's questions on human life at conception and the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

(So who's not up to speed? :eek:)
Click to expand...

It's difficult for me to slow myself down...
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
wow.
And I thought the subject of the thread was if there was any Biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception.
Of course, I got that impression from the OP, but hey, with over 800 posts and nothing to support the idea that "life begins at conception" is Biblical....
Click to expand...

Denials are easy. Demonstsration is better. See posts #760 and #763 on exactly how to go about it. :)
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
First of all, if it were self evident, you wouldn't need a "syllogism."

Second, human rights are more important than the actions of the state, so it would need to come first as the major premise.

1) Human life is a basic human right
2) A responsibility of a humane State is to protect human rights
3) It is a responsibility of a humane State to protect human life
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I accept the conclusion of your syllogism.

But this syllogism gets us absolutely nowhere in the debate over human life beginning at conception or how far the State should go to protect human life.
Click to expand...

Granted. . .it has nothing to do with human life beginning at conception.
This is AxisMundi's "rabbit trail." I am simply answering the questions presented to me.

For example, it says nothing about the State's right to abuse the health and safety of women in the name of protecting a fetus.
It also says nothing about the State's involvement in war, economic sanctions that deprive poor people of food (eg., North Korea and Palestine), and capital punishment.
Click to expand...

Agreed. . .none of which is relevant to human life beginning at conception. . .'tain't my rabbit trail.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Granted. . .it has nothing to do with human life beginning at conception.
This is AxisMundi's "rabbit trail." I am simply answering the questions presented to me.
Click to expand...

So wouldn't your syllogism be more useful if it did address the questions presented to you, as you yourself understand them:

smokydot said:
I'm responding to AxisMundi's questions on human life at conception and the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

(So who's not up to speed? :eek:)
Click to expand...
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
No comment to the oldie but goodie from another thread?

angellous_evangellous said:
Is the baptism of John from heaven or from men?
Click to expand...

This involves more of that "imaginary substance" (post #763) to "connect" Jesus' response being the answer they were seeking to the questions, "By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?"

John's baptism was from heaven.

John was a prophet. All prophecy is from God.

In answer to their question, Jesus used the divine authority of John's baptism to indicate that his authority, likewise, was from God.
 
Last edited:
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
So wouldn't your syllogism be more useful if it did address the questions presented to you, as you yourself understand them:
Click to expand...

There were two lines of questions:
1) regarding life beginning at conception, and
2) the State's responsibility to protect human life.

My responses in question were to the second.
Other responses were to the first.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
There were two lines of questions:
1) regarding life beginning at conception, and
2) the State's responsibility to protect human life.

My responses in question were to the second.
Other responses were to the first.
Click to expand...

So where are other responses to item #1? I don't see anything related to life beginning at conception after your syllogism.

Do you have a syllogism for human life beginning at conception and therefore worthy of human dignity and human rights?
 
Luminous

Luminous

non-existential luminary
smokydot said:
I'm responding to AxisMundi's questions on human life at conception and the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

(So who's not up to speed? :eek:)
Click to expand...

This would be true...maybe...if it was the responsibility of the State NOT to kill ANYONE! meaning no death penalty, no war, more socialized medicine, etc. however, it is only the responsibility of the state to protect what ever the majority defines as each individual's rights. for example, fetuses have no rights under our constitution because they are not citizens...according to Scolia, who claims that Corporations are Citizens. Acording to your basic premise...the state should not be killing anyone anywhere. that... or the fetuses of two illegals that had sexual intercourse in the US, is a US citizen. is this incorrect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top