Scientology IS a religion

Post Reply New Topic

Damn skafather84 you couldn't have said it any better.

I agree that it is a sad choice. But in a conflict between what a live woman wants and what a potential human being who is not yet a person needs, I favor the woman's cause.

ruveyn

Ok, but this criticism isn't relevant. Science has a consensus that neurological development, particularly a high level of it, is required for sentience. The neurological development resembling what is close to necessary doesn't exist in the vast majority of abortions, most of which happening in the first 12 weeks. For this reason, I don't see your criticism as likely anything but a post-hoc rationalization for what you already support for other reasons. I mean, usually people who punt back to neurology and sentience and personhood and things like that find that the neural issues would suggest later dates. Michael Shermer picks the last trimester based upon brain wave patterns. Peter Singer picks a time after the baby is born due to what he perceives as necessary mental qualities for personhood. I don't think a valid case exists for earlier points.

Even further, the science isn't going to be clear, as there isn't an essential line here. However, we can set legal definitions without essential lines, and we do it all the time. Most things are somewhat arbitrary, such as which side of the street to drive on.

Also, I will say that generally Master_Pedant is correct.


This is not sophistry if this is his actual position. Really, it is sophistry to label it sophistry for Master_Pedant to properly label an entity according to his understanding of reality. I actually agree with his labeling. These are not people, and the fact that these are not people is really rather neurologically clear. There is even research suggesting that they cannot have pain until the third trimester. While ability to feel pain is not the same as being a person or morally worthy, it is certainly relevant in making the decision. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947 (Note: I actually did happen to have this article on hand due to a past research effort, and I know it to be open to all viewers. I do not always have articles on hand for every topic, just to let you know that I am not being unfair in terms of selecting articles for situations. This is merely fortuitous.)


Well... ok? But if one refuses to combine a sperm and egg, one is taking away the potential of the child formed by that. Ultimately... I don't think this is a compelling argument. As I stated earlier, this is really a very flimsy post-hoc rationalization as far as I can tell. The reason I say "flimsy post-hoc rationalization" is because it seems abundantly clear that none of the arguments are compelling in any real sense given the obvious flaws. I mean, your first hurdle is actually arguing that "potential for personhood" is morally important, because if we deny personhood, why should we still accept "potential for personhood" as so deeply important or morally relevant. Removing the "potential for personhood" harms no person, which already discredits it in the eyes of a large number of mainstream ethical systems.


I am not really sure that it is that silly to believe that. The ability of God to perform miracles, even the disciples of God to perform miracles is clear in scripture. I'd even go so far as to say that the cessationist opinion seems less founded to me than the Pentacostal opinion. (and well.... I think a number of theological commentators have noted a rise in these more miracle seeking views.)


Certainty, maybe. Correctness? No.

ruveyn and AG

I would rather not continue to put forward my position on abortion in a thread about Scientology. If however you would like to have this discussion in another thread. Feel free to paste your comments there and I will do my best to convince you of my position.

Scientology is a cult, not a religion.

Christianity is a death cult and still a religion.

Thank you Master_Pedant.

Exactly. I was hoping somebody was going to be smart enough to bring that up. Pretty much all religions started as a cults of some sort.

But anything Tom Cruise is involved in, can it be call a religion, or even a good movie? Ah, the eternal question that may never be answered.

Religions are, in general, cults. The difference is that "cult" is used as a pejorative for a religious belief that isn't accepted within the mainstream. If people were to gain any sense about them, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the rest would be viewed as cults as well and treated appropriately as cults looking to gain social influence as any cult does.

They do go after folks with money.
But they exploit all classes of people.

A penniless aquaintence was persuaded to sell diantetics books on the street to support his membership in scientology- which for him seems to have been a kind of psuedo psycho therapy for his mental problems.

He left the cult years ago, and is now an outpatient of a mental health facility.

The point being that he was ripe for plucking by a cult because of his problems.
If your poor they work you to death. If you're John Travolta they take your money and exploit your fame to advance the brand name.

It's kind of sad really... Scientology hunts for the mentally ill... and then brainwashes them into thinking that psychiatric help is evil, preventing the mentally ill from getting help and realizing that they are being scammed.

Hey, at least with brain washing you know your noggin is clean! Eh, eh? Oy you guys are just a bunch of masuganas!