Posted on 07/26/2006 9:58:08 PM PDT by Coleus
Isn't the brain a body part? Regardless, a human being is more than the sum of his parts.
You are simply rationalizing abortion. How do I know? Because you wouldn't congratulate your expectant friend on her new "body parts," you'd congratulate her for her new baby. Babies become "body parts" when people want to justify killing them.
Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known.Darwinists laugh when critics accuse him of being the father of modern eugenics. I don't know what would constitute proof for these people.Darwin
Sadly, the eugenics movement grew rapidly in this country until it fell into disfavor with the advent of "the final solution." Interestingly, many American institutions that people regard as benign (such as elite academies like Choate and Andover, and "The Daughters of the American Revolution) had their origins in "good breeding." Have you ever wondered why to become a member of DOTAR a woman has to be able to trace her ancestry to the Mayflower?
Notice the explosion in the number of hereditary societies founded in America following the publication of "The Origin of Species." The public understood the implications of Darwin's theory, even if he didn't. But of course, he did.
"No man is more sensible than I am of the service to science and letters, Humanity, Fraternity and Liberty, that would have been rendered by the Encyclopedists and Economists, by Voltaire, D'Alembert, Buffon, Diderot, Rousseau, LaLande, Frederick and Catherine, if they had possessed common sense. But they were all totally destitute of it. They all seemed to think that all Christendom was convinced as they were, that all religion was "visions Judaiques," and that their effulgent lights had illuminated all the world. They seemed to believe, that whole nations and continents had been changed in their principles, opinions, habits, and feeling, by the sovereign grace of their almighty philosophy, almost as suddenly as Catholics and Calvinists believe in instantaneous conversion. They had not considered the force of early education on the millions of minds who had never heard of their philosophy. And what was their philosophy? Atheism; pure, unadulterated Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, Frederick, De La Lande and Grimm, were indubitable Atheists. The universe was matter only, and eternal; sprit was a word without meaning; liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion, and action was necessary. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality were all nothing but fate.
... We all curse Robespierre and Bonaparte, but were they not both such restless, vain, extravagant animals as Diderot and Voltaire? Voltaire was the greatest literary character, and Bonaparte the greatest military character of the eighteenth century. There is all the difference between them. Both equally heroes and equally cowards."
John Adams (Jefferson's Philosophical Beliefs)
What about Hitlery?
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml
Who cares about that bitch? Check this neofascist Movimento Sociale Italiano out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Mussolini
What a waste of body parts.
Here, the ultimate mixed race that is the Jews developed over the centuries from the oriental-preasiatic racial mixture, with a hint of the negroid - foreign to us Europeans, born from totally different kinds of racial elements, different from us in body and above all in soul. We would probably never have been bothered by them, had they remained in their Eastern homeland.Darwinism in practice.
"Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals- of the fossil horse, for instance, which disappeared from South America, soon afterwards to be replaced, within the same districts, by countless troups of the Spanish horse. The New Zealander seems conscious of this parallelism, for he compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat. Though the difficulty is great to our imagination, and really great, if we wish to ascertain the precise causes and their manner of action, it ought not to be so to our reason, as long as we keep steadily in mind that the increase of each species and each race is constantly checked in various ways; so that if any new check, even a slight one, be superadded, the race will surely decrease in number; and decreasing numbers will sooner or later lead to extinction; the end, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of conquering tribes.
On the Formation of the Races of Man.- In some cases the crossing of distinct races has led to the formation of a new race. The singular fact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the same Aryan stock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ widely in appearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who belong to the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been accounted for by Broca,* through certain Aryan branches having been largely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion. When two races in close contact cross, the first result is a heterogeneous mixture: thus Mr. Hunter, in describing the Santali orhill-tribes of India, says that hundreds of imperceptible gradations may be traced "from the black, squat tribes of the mountains to the tall olive-coloured Brahman, with his intellectual brow, calm eyes, and high but narrow head"; so that it is necessary in courts of justice to ask the witnesses whether they are Santalis or Hindoos.*(2) Whether a heterogeneous people, such as the inhabitants of some of the Polynesian islands, formed by the crossing of two distinct races, with few or no pure members left, would ever become homogeneous, is not known from direct evidence. But as with our domesticated animals, a cross-breed can certainly be fixed and made uniform by careful selection*(3) in the course of a few generations, we may infer that the free inter-crossing of a heterogeneous mixture during a long descent would supply the place of selection, and overcome any tendency to reversion; so that the crossed race would ultimately become homogeneous, though it might not partake in an equal degree of the characters of the two parent-races."
Darwin was not as evil as Richard Wagner.
Darwin ch 7
Darwin was not as evil as Richard Wagner.
Wagner was just taking Darwin's thought to its (il)logical conclusion, just as Darwin's cousin, Galton did. There's no evidence of Darwin repudiating his cousin's expansion of his theories.
Francis Galton (1822-1911) was an English scientist who studied heredity and intelligence. He was the person who coined the word eugenics, using Greek words to express what was originally a Greek concept.He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. Erasmus Darwin was Francis Galton's maternal grandfather and also Charles Darwin's paternal grandfather. Erasmus Darwin developed a theory of evolution that Charles Darwin later expanded and refined.
Galton defined his new word this way: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally."
Marx was worse than Darwin, but Wagner was the worst of all.
Perhaps you recall our discussion a while back on Ayn Rand. One of Rand's famous dicta was "A is A." Here, you're saying it's not. Just pointing that out to you....
Sorry Darwin was worse that Marx. I get them confused sometimes.
And that life in them originated while in the womb, being constructed by the newly conceived life building the body for survival in the air world. The question then becomes, "Is there soul of an individual in the organs which are alive even if transplanted into another being?"
For a meaningful answer we ought consult the information program which constructed the organs to start with. And that program was set down when the sperm and ovum united to form a new set of DNA identity.
The debater desiring to support the notion of 'no human being at embryo or early fetal age' will plead that 'DNA is a molecule of biological instructions giving not a hint to an individual soul involved.' And then this same debater will jump instantly to the conclusion you offered, that a functioning brain is the only rational indication of an individual soul being present with this body of alive parts.
I would (and often find it necessary to) respond with the following analogy. The functioning brain is like a newly constructed piece of machinery in a building filling up with machinery ... the machine shop is the business, one or another machine is but a single useful tool for the expression of 'machine shop'. When did the business become 'machine shop'? If the owner of 'machine shop' decides to sell or dies, going out of business happens usually before the machinery is sold off or sinks into rusty disrepair. Some machines may be quite useful in other machine shops. Will taking one of these machines into another shop make that shop the business of the deceased or out of business owner? While the original machine shop functioned at a less 'efficient' level, new machinery may have been added along the way while parts were being manufactured inside the shop, but when that new piece of machinery came on line, the business really took off.
Make of that what you will, Jenny, but it is not correct to assume that the soul is not present until a completely functioning brain is in place ... a newborn's brain is not yet complete for final operational capabilities and you wouldn't advocate that these little ones are not yet possessing a soul.
And one last thing: the newly conceived human builds an organ for survival (the placetal encapsulation/amniotic sac) very early in the lifetime begun at conception, and then proceeds to function building the body of organs to be used when in the air world. That first organ is cast off at birth, but it was the organ necessary for sustaining and organizing bodily life functions while in the womb, and this well before the brain comes on line to carry out the bodily life function signalling. After a while in the construction process occurring in the womb, the brain comes on line and begins to function primitively at first, then with more sophistication as more cells are added to the brain.
With your approach to assigning a soul present, we could argue that premise right down to the formation of the first neuronal cell of the new life and assign soul to the arrival of the first neuronal cell. But that would be a silly syllogism, don't you think? Silly because we would be asserting something we could not have enough information to support such an assertion.
Have you seen "Escape from L.A." or "Demolition Man"?
That was uncalled for and decidedly condescending thus an insult spewed openly on the forum. Please refrain from such infantile responses. Jenny makes her assertions in an honest vein, not in condescension. Treat her remarks with the respect you would expect if you were making honest assertionsfor cordial discussion and this forum will be the better for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.