PDA

View Full Version : Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)



Pages : [1] 2 3

Crow
August 2nd, 2004, 11:27 PM
This thread contains pictures of aborted babies.




I am placing this warning here not to sensationalize this thread, but because when an image of an aborted child was posted in another thread, a person requested that there be a warning posted. This is a reasonable request. I would not want young kids to be looking over my shoulder when these images load. Many people are unable to stand looking at graphic pictures of dead babies.




It was made evident in another thread that some people still do not realize the extent to which our society condones the murder of children. There is a misconception that lumps of unrecognizable human tissue are being aborted. This thread is going to show exactly what goes into the incinerators and medical waste containers, so if you have a weak stomach or cannot bear to look at the images of dead children, please procede no furthur in this thread. If you wish to add photographs, please do so. Sometimes it is necessary to see the fruits of evil to understand the wickedness of those who promote the murder of babies. Look at these pictures yourself and decide if these are lumps of tissue.





This thread contains pictures of aborted babies.

Crow
August 2nd, 2004, 11:30 PM
This is the product of an abortion. Is this a human or is it a lump of tissue?

Crow
August 2nd, 2004, 11:38 PM
This baby was killed in the first trimester--12 weeks.

Crow
August 2nd, 2004, 11:44 PM
Another murdered child.

Crow
August 2nd, 2004, 11:48 PM
That "shroud" you see is a black plastic garbage bag.

Crow
August 2nd, 2004, 11:57 PM
This one really bothers me because I took a picture of my nephew a few days after he was born and he was sleeping in a very similar position.

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 12:27 AM
Sozo posted this in another thread, and some of the responses made me realize that some people truly don't understand the scope of what is going on in abortion clinics. They have been deceived into believing that what is being removed from the womb is just a blob of tissue. Here it is again:

Lighthouse
August 3rd, 2004, 12:56 AM
:madmad:

Murderers should die at the hands of the law!

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 02:42 AM
Here's a baby killed at 24 weeks of gestation:

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 03:02 AM
Abortion fees (http://www.houstonwomensclinic.com/fees.html)


Canadian abortion fees (http://www.kensingtonclinic.com/fees.htm)


More abortion fees (http://www.hopemedical.com/3.htm). Note the ironic name of this facility.

More abortion fees (http://www.volunteermedical.com/4.html).

Here's a place that does abortions at six months.

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 03:24 AM
Some people still believe that late abortions extremely are rare, and done before the baby is able to live outside the womb (viable).

When you look at the weeks of gestational age at which these abortions are being performed, keep in mind that John's Hopkins Hospital gave these percentages of viability for babies born at these gestational ages:

- at 23 weeks = 15%

- at 24 weeks = 56%

- at 25 weeks = 79%

Here are statistics from other sources cited below:

Survival rates by gestational birth age Weeks of gestation at birth

23 weeks- 30% survived
24 weeks- 52% survived
25 weeks- 76% survived

1MacDonald H, Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2002). Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics, 110(5): 1024–1027.

3Wood NS, et al. (2000). Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(6): 378–84.



These @#$% are killing babies who can survive outside the womb.

Late term abortion providers. (http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/late.html)

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 04:23 AM
Let's put the abortions statistics in perspective. (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.htmlbible.com%2F abortstats.htm)

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 09:14 AM
Sad and tragic thread, Crow. :(

Thanks for the courage to start it.

Knight
August 3rd, 2004, 11:19 AM
:cry:

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 11:19 AM
A few additional related statistics...

Christians make up the great majority (about 70%) of women obtaining abortions...

43% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant

27% of women having abortions claim to be Roman Catholic

One in five women having abortions claim to be born-again or Evangelical Christians

Source: 1995 Alan Guttmacher Institute study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html)

===============================
Incidents of Violence Against Abortion Providers
1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)

Knight
August 3rd, 2004, 11:20 AM
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. - Proverbs 29:2

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 11:22 AM
Perhaps the self-proclaimed "righteous" should look to cleaning their own house first... :think:

BTW, I thought the "ruler" here was GW Bush - a devout evangelical Christian...

... which "wicked man" did you have in mind, Knight?

Sozo
August 3rd, 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)

Okay, so it's not organized crime. But, I'm sure if they had the govenment behind them, they could do better.

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

A few additional related statistics...

Christians make up the great majority (about 70%) of women obtaining abortions...

43% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant

27% of women having abortions claim to be Roman Catholic

One in five women having abortions claim to be born-again or Evangelical Christians

Source: 1995 Alan Guttmacher Institute study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html)


Ok you got me? Why the need to post this?
So what?! You think just because some of these are done by Christians that we're going to take up for them or something? Having ones baby butchered to death is wrong no matter who does it. Or is it to let us know how wicked some can be, even those who claim to be Christians? Certainly no argument there. So now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to how sickening it is to have ones own baby murdered.



===============================
Incidents of Violence Against Abortion Providers
1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)
Again, what's your point? Who around here do you expect to get defensive and take up for any of these who do such awful things?

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Ok you got me? Why the need to post this?
So what?! You think just because some of these are done by Christians that we're going to take up for them or something? I think that if you Christians were halfway effective at getting your own to stop patronizing abortion providers you'd be most of the way toward eliminating abortions in the U.S.


So now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to how sickening it is to have ones own baby murdered.Translations: Stop distracting us from wallowing in the depravity of humankind...


Again, what's your point? Who around here do you expect to get defensive and take up for any of these who do such awful things? I don't think any such thing. There are many people who read boards like this that never post a thing. It's good for them to see that things aren't so "black and white" as some people might assume...

The solution to human problems are not always as simple as passing another law... something you Christians should be the first to acknowledge.

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Okay, so it's not organized crime. But, I'm sure if they had the govenment behind them, they could do better. Yes, it's very disorganized crime. One might think with the power of the almighty allegedly behind their efforts they'd be more effective... :think:

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

A few additional related statistics...

Christians make up the great majority (about 70%) of women obtaining abortions...

43% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant

27% of women having abortions claim to be Roman Catholic

One in five women having abortions claim to be born-again or Evangelical Christians

Source: 1995 Alan Guttmacher Institute study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html)

===============================

No kidding, Zakath. You were a Christian, and you don't know that Christians are just as capable of doing evil things as anyone else? This thread was aimed at our own as well as at the non-Christians. Killing babies isn't just a Christian issue, just as drive by shootings aren't just condemned by Christians.



Incidents of Violence Against Abortion Providers
1977-2004

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary

Source: National Abortion Federation (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prochoice.org%2F)

Do you believe that I or most of the Christians here think that it's OK to kill or otherwise assault abortion providers? Aside from the fact that your list looks pitiful against the human lives snuffed out each year in abortion clinics, being anti-abortion does not mean that you support violence against abortionists. They should be shut down by legal means. And those who murder abortionists should be put to death for murder.

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Crow

No kidding, Zakath. You were a Christian, and you don't know that Christians are just as capable of doing evil things as anyone else? Not according to some Christians...


This thread was aimed at our own as well as at the non-Christians. Killing babies isn't just a Christian issue, just as drive by shootings aren't just condemned by Christians.Thank you for clarifying that point.


Do you believe that I or most of the Christians here think that it's OK to kill or otherwise assault abortion providers? Well, I would hope not, but I read an awful lot of bluster about executing people for certain sexual activities, etc. It's hard to separate the data from the noise sometimes, if you get my meaning...


Aside from the fact that your list looks pitiful against the human lives snuffed out each year in abortion clinics, being anti-abortion does not mean that you support violence against abortionists. On what basis will some Christians, not you particularly, justify going to "war on terrorism" for killing children and adults in the WTC attacks, but not going to war on those who would kill children every day in every major city in the U.S.?

:think:

There's a cognitiive dissonance issue here...


They should be shut down by legal means. And those who murder abortionists should be put to death for murder. I think we would agree on these last two statements... :thumb:

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

There are many people who read boards like this that never post a thing. It's good for them to see that things aren't so "black and white" as some people might assume...


Well, while we're on the subject of making sure that people who read boards like this are reading what's good for them, I think it should be made known that anything you would have to say will be coming from one who doesn't think it's absolutely wrong for an 8 year old child to be raped. :rolleyes:

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Well, while we're on the subject of making sure that people who read boards like this are reading what's good for them, I think it should be made known that anything you would have to say will be coming from one who doesn't think it's absolutely wrong for an 8 year old child to be raped. :rolleyes: So are you happy now that you've dragged Knight's bankrupt argument back out of the archives... it's a poor attempt to divert the thread, Poly.

I think that all rape is wrong, regardless of the age of the victim.

I also believe that human slavery is wrong and that torturing and killing people because of their religious beliefs or sexual practices is wrong.

Which is more than I can say for certain biblical literalists...

the Sibbie
August 3rd, 2004, 12:29 PM
Yikes! Those are some horrible pictures! :mad: Especailly the ones without heads! :madmad:

It's amazing to see how rapidly a child grows from week to week. The growth rates are drastic!

the Sibbie
August 3rd, 2004, 12:34 PM
Zakath, I wonder how many of those "Christian" women attended the church that you used to pastor?

erinmarie
August 3rd, 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

Yikes! Those are some horrible pictures! :mad: Especailly the ones without heads! :madmad:

It's amazing to see how rapidly a child grows from week to week. The growth rates are drastic!

My baby brother was born at 26 weeks gestation and weighed 1 pound 13ounces. He looked smaller than most of the pics Crow posted.

Also, my oldest daughter was born 19 days after her due date, and looked smaller than all of the babies in the trash bag. It's just sad to think of the depravity of the people who commited those acts.

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

Zakath, I wonder how many of those "Christian" women attended the church that you used to pastor? My, my, getting catty aren't we... :cattyfan:

Since our church was only a couple of hundred people at a time, probably not that many.

Judging by the baby boom that went on there among the young marrieds, I don't think there were many of them getting abortions during the time they attended... :think:

Much as I'd love to stay around while you sharpen your nails, I've got to head out for a meeting.

:ha:

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Not according to some Christians...

Some Christians think it's OK to have an elective abortion at 28 weeks. We've got fools in our camp too.


Well, I would hope not, but I read an awful lot of bluster about executing people for certain sexual activities, etc. It's hard to separate the data from the noise sometimes, if you get my meaning...

Christians are instructed to obey the law of the land, and that law prohibits killing people for certain sexual activities. Paul addressed it, I can't recall exactly where, I'm too lazy to look it up right now, and I'm certain you are familiar with this.


On what basis will some Christians, not you particularly, justify going to "war on terrorism" for killing children and adults in the WTC attacks, but not going to war on those who would kill children every day in every major city in the U.S.?
:think:
There's a cognitiive dissonance issue here...

Abortion doesn't get people's attention like the WTC. It isn't splashed accross the news to the same extent, and there's no gathering of weeping survivors of the murdered. We don't perceive it as an evil assault on the motherland.

Someone killing unborn babies doesn't quite present as personal a threat to most people as "Someone might drop a plane on my butt!" I think personal safety lies closest to the reason why terrorism elicits a far greater response than abortion. Adults are not in danger of abortion. Let something loose in this country that would end a few hundred thousand adult lives a year, and you'd see a somewhat heightened reaction.

Both issues need to be addressed. But do I believe that a terrorist act and a social/legal issue need to be handled or should be handled in the same manner? No. Force is appropriate to deal with terrorist attacks. Abortion is legal in this country. It should be dealt with by working to change the laws.

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

So are you happy now that you've dragged Knight's bankrupt argument back out of the archives
Yes, very much so because it clearly drives the point home that one can't give much credit to any point you're trying to make.

... it's a poor attempt to divert the thread, Poly.


And just what do you call it when you try and take the attention off of babies being aborted by diverting everybody's attention to the abortionists being killed, Mr Kettle?


I think that all rape is wrong, regardless of the age of the victim.


Yes, we all know, Zakath. You believe rape is wrong but you don't believe in absolutes...blah, blah, blah.

It's still just as ridiculous as it ever was. :kookoo:

Zakath
August 3rd, 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Yes, very much so because it clearly drives the point home that one can't give much credit to any point you're trying to make.

And just what do you call it when you try and take the attention off of babies being aborted by diverting everybody's attention to the abortionists being killed, Mr Kettle?


Yes, we all know, Zakath. You believe rape is wrong but you don't believe in absolutes...blah, blah, blah.

It's still just as ridiculous as it ever was. :kookoo: And you believe in absolutes, so you believe it's right to torture and kill people because of their sexual orientation...

...you're part of a group that believes human slavery is moral and good

There's plenty of foolishness to go round among us humans, Poly.

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

And you believe in absolutes, so you believe it's right to torture and kill people because of their sexual orientation...
Torture? I've never said anything about torture. If you're referring to a quick death for homos then you're right.


...you're part of a group that believes human slavery is moral and good
I'm sure you're idea of slavery is anything but biblical. (nice way to take advantage of what most people will assume you mean when you say "human slavery"....cheap)


There's plenty of foolishness to go round among us humans, Poly.
So by stating "us humans" are you admitting you're foolishness in not believing in absolutes?

Knight
August 3rd, 2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Much as I'd love to stay around while you sharpen your nails, I've got to head out for a meeting.

:ha: Run like the wind Zakath!!!!

When the going gets tough... Zakath gets sick... or gets going to a meeting.

The women of TOL gave ol' :zakath: a healthy beating today! :up:

That was awesome!

:zakath: :sibbie: :crow2: :cattyfan: :emarie: :Poly:

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Run like the wind Zakath!!!!

When the going gets tough... Zakath gets sick... or gets going to a meeting.

The women of TOL gave ol' :zakath: a healthy beating today! :up:

That was awesome!

:zakath: :sibbie: :crow2: :cattyfan: :emarie: :Poly:

See? There's Poly reading Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". She passes it down the line to the other "Shesmackers" till it reaches the Sibbie who wollups Zakath with it. :D

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps the self-proclaimed "righteous" should look to cleaning their own house first... :think:

Christians are just as guilty of abortion as non-Christians. The whole nation's house needs cleaned when it comes to abortion.


BTW, I thought the "ruler" here was GW Bush - a devout evangelical Christian...

You think that the President rules in a Democracy?...wait, no, Republic?....wait, no, Representative Democracy?...oh, whatever the heck this is?

:darwinsm:

the Sibbie
August 3rd, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Poly

See? There's Poly reading Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". She passes it down the line to the other "Shesmackers" till it reaches the Sibbie who wollups Zakath with it. :D :darwinsm:

Balder
August 3rd, 2004, 02:07 PM
The graphic pictures are very effective at communicating the horror of abortion. I'm no longer a Christian, but abortion is not acceptable by Buddhist standards either.

But I wonder about the selective thinking here. Many of the people here, I am guessing, while rightly outraged by the violence perpetrated against these innocent babies, will nevertheless support execution of homosexuals and possibly adulterers, will defend Biblical descriptions of the mass slaughter of pagan children as "necessary" and divinely ordained, and will not say a peep against the thousands of civilians who die in our war efforts abroad. If you are truly against harming precious, sentient life, then why the narrow scope? Why be so tightly and murderously focused on this one issue, and yet so noncommittal about these other instances of human violence and atrocity?

I expect here all sorts of "conditions" to be offered, all sorts of contextual reasons why other sorts of human murder should be excused or defended (or at least ignored).

But it seems hypocritical to me.

Peace,
Balder

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 02:11 PM
This happens to be the abortion thread. It's not the only issue. It's the issue we're discussing here. You're welcome to start threads on any of those issues you wish.

Balder
August 3rd, 2004, 02:12 PM
I have! But they're mostly being ignored... :)

Crow
August 3rd, 2004, 02:14 PM
Try pictures.

Turbo
August 3rd, 2004, 02:51 PM
It's really simple, Balder:

Protect the innocent.
Punish the guilty.

Knight
August 3rd, 2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Balder

But it seems hypocritical to me.

Maybe you haven't given the topic then appropriate amount of mental attention.

Tell me....
Is all killing murder?

Balder
August 3rd, 2004, 03:01 PM
Is all killing murder?

In the tradition I follow, the prohibition is not against murder, which is a particular kind of killing (according to Judeo-Christian formulations), but against killing itself. Buddhism is more sweeping in its condemnation of killing as a "solution" to our problems.

Sozo
August 3rd, 2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Balder

Buddhism is more sweeping in its condemnation of killing as a "solution" to our problems. Does that include fish?

Balder
August 3rd, 2004, 03:17 PM
Sozo,

I take Crow's post #39 to be a request that I not take this thread on a tangent, so if you want to talk about this topic further, you can post to me on one of my threads in the General Theology forum.

To answer your question, though, Buddhism originally promoted vegetarianism, but not all Buddhists follow that anymore. The emphasis is on not killing human beings in particular, while also protecting all life to the greatest extent practical.

cattyfan
August 3rd, 2004, 03:25 PM
I'm a late comer to this thread today.

First, thank you for the warning. I was the one who originally requested it (before the lengthy discussion by some other posters) because I became very literally physically ill when yesterday I unexpectedly came across a graphic photo. I appreciate the warning. With the chance to brace myself, I went ahead and read all of the posts from page one.

Secondly, many of you know when I originally came to TOL, I was adamantly and loudly pro-choice. I was badgered, challenged, questioned, threatened, called names, and sent notes. But it was the quiet voices which caught my attention. And it was because of those gentle, thoughtful messages I began to examine my beliefs. I prayed, contemplated, read Bible passages, looked at pictures of my nieces and nephews. I researched, read, and prayed some more.

Then I received the following note:


abortion change of heart

Hi :cattyfan: .

I was wondering about something... I don't mean to pry or anything, but I remember last fall when you were new to TOL you made some posts saying that you supported keeping abortion legal. Then a few months later I read that you had had a change of heart and that you are now against legalized abortion.

(Correct me if I'm mistaken.)

What role, if any, the discussion(s) on TOL played in your change of heart. And if they did play a role, to what extent?

The reason I ask is that I often see debates on TOL that go like this:

Christian: This (law/situation/school curriculum/court's decision/common perception/whatever) is terrible! We've got to stop this!

Scoffer: Then get out there and DO something about it instead of whining about it on the internet.


The way I see it, "whining about it on the internet" IS doing something about it. This is, after all, a public forum set up to facilitate debate. And the people who are here, whether they post or just read, know that and are here of their own volition. And every now and then, someone changes their heart and mind about something based on the discussions here.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

Thanks for your time,
:turbo:

This is how I responded:


to be honest, Turbo, the discussions on TOL have caused me to question my support of legalized abortion. I am not fully turned, but I am having serious second thoughts about many of the things I've said here and other places.

Part of it has been the gentle words of people like ebenz and Nineveh and others like them...part of it has been the cold words of posters classifying "fetuses" as non-people, when I know from seeing 2 of my nephews born at 5 and 1/2 months and being fully formed little beings that they are, indeed, people. And part of it has been the blatant ignorance of some of the posters in the pro-choice camp.

When I was in college, I was militantly pro-choice. I went to a very liberal school, and that was the accepted viewpoint. Since then, I hadn't been challenged on my beliefs (I'm 37 now), and, because of that, I hadn't examined why I held those ideas. The debate on TOL has forced me to seriously take a look at what I think and why, and, frankly, I didn't like my reasons. They don't seem as sound now, or even, in some cases, logical.

The debates here have caused me to take a closer look at who I was and who I would like to be. Without these discussions, where we get to remain anonymous while learning, I'm not sure I could have reached this point. I still have trouble with the topic, knowing pregnancy would kill me (kidney problems,) but to look at the subject from an objective point of view, I can't say I honestly support abortion…and even personally, knowing pregnancy is death for me, I don't believe I could really terminate. (That's something I've never told anyone, but always felt.)

by the way, Sozo's vitriole did not help...in fact he hindered the process. When faced with that kind of anger, I, like so many, dig my heals in. It's the soft voices, that helped me think.

1 Kings 19:12-13 "...And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave."

Job 26:14 "and these are but the outer fringe of his works. how faint the whisper we hear of Him! Who then can understand the thunder of His power?"

I hope this answered your question...you're always welcome to ask me anything. I'll try to answer as honestly as I can.

Kindest Regards,

cattyfan

I should have given some credit to Sozo, as it was his anger towards me which originally got my attention.

The pictures on this thread made me sob. The easy dismissal of those same photos by some posters made me sob harder. My time here at TOL has forever changed me, and I am no longer pro-choice. I may be stubborn, but I'm not stupid. Those pictures clearly show children whose lives were ended by unnatural means. That's murder.

:cattyfan:

erinmarie
August 3rd, 2004, 03:36 PM
Now you're making Me cry! :cry:
That was a wonderful "statement".
Thank You!

Sozo
August 3rd, 2004, 03:37 PM
:thumb:

the Sibbie
August 3rd, 2004, 03:43 PM
Yes, thank you :cattyfan: for sharing your testimony!

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 04:04 PM
Wow, Catty. I admire you beyond words. :cry:
You, whose life is in danger if ever becoming pregnant, would take such a stand. I only hope to match this kind of integrity that I've found in you.
You are my new hero!!!

cattyfan
August 3rd, 2004, 04:16 PM
thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life.

Poly
August 3rd, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life.
Ok, Catty, you keep this up and I'm going to have to ask you to pay me for a new keyboard. This one keeps getting wet.

Knight
August 3rd, 2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Balder

In the tradition I follow, the prohibition is not against murder, which is a particular kind of killing (according to Judeo-Christian formulations), but against killing itself. Buddhism is more sweeping in its condemnation of killing as a "solution" to our problems. Well thankfully most people aren't as dumb as you are and most people can see the difference between "killing" and "murder".

You see.... most people are smart enough to realize that when a lady is being raped in a grocery store parking lot and she stabs the attacker in the throat with her pocket knife she didn't commit a murder. In fact what she did was a good thing!

You..... on the other hand will live your life making a fool of yourself because your too stupid to make this simple distinction.

“And will you profane Me among My people ...., killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live,...? - Ezekiel 13:19

Knight
August 3rd, 2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life. Actually it is us (TOL and it's mod's and admin's) that are honored to have such an honest and frank Christian woman like you Catty as a member of our website.

Sozo
August 3rd, 2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Actually it is us (TOL and it's mod's and admin's) that are honored to have such an honest and frank Christian woman like you Catty as a member of our website.
Here.. Here!!

btw...

I'm sorry if I was too abrasive in the beginning, catty, and thank God for those who softened the blow. You are a testimony to the need of a great site like TOL, and how important it is that those who stand firm in the faith, continue to support it.

cattyfan
August 3rd, 2004, 06:20 PM
originally posted by Sozo

I'm sorry if I was too abrasive in the beginning, catty, and thank God for those who softened the blow. You are a testimony to the need of a great site like TOL, and how important it is that those who stand firm in the faith, continue to support it.

apology accepted, but given that it was you who got me to initially pay attention, I don't think you need to apologize. And thank you for the support.

ShadowMaid
August 3rd, 2004, 06:48 PM
I just came across this thread, and I was near tears when I saw that one picuture of the child with a severed head next to where is actually should have been. I can't understand how people can do that for a living. What a beautiful being, and they can killed it, heartlessly. It makes me so mad. I can hardly stand it.

I'm only 14 (almost 15 now! :) ), but I'm actually looking forward to getting married young, and motherhood.

Until then I just cry, and go to some abortion protests. Which I actually thoroughly enjoy. I feel so much better with how I spent my time that day. But yet I still feel so sad, knowing that I didn't stop aborion, and sometimes it seems that I only made someone madder and stick with abortion even more.

It's very sad to see young girls, only a little older then me yelling from a distance saying that we're full of it, and so on.

From this thread, I feel my duty to go out and try my best to stop all of this. It shouldn't happen, and we shouldn't be silent anymore.

Lighthouse
August 4th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Catty-
Thank you. You are a great and wonderful person.

Sozo-
I feel the same way as Cattyfan. You seemed nothing more than abrasive and full of...hot air, when I arrived here. But somehow I saw your point, and I changed my mind. You are now someone I respect deeply.

Crow
August 4th, 2004, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Catty-
Thank you. You are a great and wonderful person.

Sozo-
I feel the same way as Cattyfan. You seemed nothing more than abrasive and full of...hot air, when I arrived here. But somehow I saw your point, and I changed my mind. You are now someone I respect deeply.

Like you and catty, Sozo grew on me too. He's always been availiable when I need a point of theology explained, he's never held back from telling me when I was wrong, and he's been kind and helpful in recommending books that have helped me to understand the Christian faith better.

He ain't so bad once you get to know him. But don't tell Sozo that. :chuckle:

Zakath
August 4th, 2004, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Torture? I've never said anything about torture. If you're referring to a quick death for homos then you're right.Death by stoning, the preferred biblical method for killing malefactors would be considered torture by most modern societies.


I'm sure you're idea of slavery is anything but biblical. (nice way to take advantage of what most people will assume you mean when you say "human slavery"....cheap)This thread is not about human slavery, but to address your point, I understand human slavery to be the buying and selling of human beings as chattel property for the purpose of involuntary servitude.

Is that different from your definition of human slavery? :think:

Zakath
August 4th, 2004, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Knight

Run like the wind Zakath!!!!

When the going gets tough... Zakath gets sick... or gets going to a meeting.Well some of us actually do have to work sometimes, Knight.

Gotta afford that Internet connection so I can help build up your post counts... :geek:

Zakath
August 4th, 2004, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Poly

See? There's Poly reading Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"...

And the wise man proclaims it with his keyboard. :geek:

Zakath
August 4th, 2004, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Crow
...You think that the President rules in a Democracy?...wait, no, Republic?....wait, no, Representative Democracy?...oh, whatever the heck this is?
Just to ease your confusion since you appear to have missed that high school civics lesson, the United States is a democratic republic.

The office of President is the chief executive and has authority over the executive branch of the government and the military. When the political party to which he belongs has a sufficient majority in both houses of Congress, it could be said that, as the head of his political party, he "rules" for all practical purposes.

Aimiel
August 4th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

thank you for the compliment. I'm humbled by those of you who've given their time and wisdom to help teach me.

I've never been good about admitting mistakes or talking about such a personal, deeply-held opinion. But after reading through this thread I was compelled to discuss how the Holy Spirit and those who belong here on TOL have changed me. I only hope this helps others whose hearts have been hardened by a society that encourages the blatant disregard for human life. What a blessing you are to The Body of Christ, TOL, future children that might just not be aborted because of your opinion, myself and even the entire world. Thanks for your honesty and your seeking (and finding) Truth. I bless you, and ask The Lord God, my Father, to bless you; with all manner of spiritual and physical blessings. Grace and peace be multiplied in your life. The Lord is glorified by your testimony, and when He is lifted up, He is able to draw all the world to Himself. :thumb:

Crow
August 4th, 2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Just to ease your confusion since you appear to have missed that high school civics lesson, the United States is a democratic republic.

The office of President is the chief executive and has authority over the executive branch of the government and the military. When the political party to which he belongs has a sufficient majority in both houses of Congress, it could be said that, as the head of his political party, he "rules" for all practical purposes.

In theory, Zak. In practice, it's got elements of several systems, hence my tongue-in-cheek post.

With the Supreme Court free to function in a loose-cannon capacity if it so desires, a system of rising to the top that requires an expenditure of funds that leave any candidate indebited to a political party and it's various donors, and having to prostitute himself to the whims of a fickle voting public, the President has power to lead whoever feels like following him, and often ends up on the other end of the leash.

Zakath
August 4th, 2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Crow

In theory, Zak. In practice, it's got elements of several systems, hence my tongue-in-cheek post.Watch those "tongue-in-cheek" things, it's too easy to bite yourself... ;)


With the Supreme Court free to function in a loose-cannon capacity if it so desires, a system of rising to the top that requires an expenditure of funds that leave any candidate indebited to a political party and it's various donors, and having to prostitute himself to the whims of a fickle voting public, the President has power to lead whoever feels like following him, and often ends up on the other end of the leash. It seems to be pretty much what the founders intended, if you read their writings. They wanted the branches of the government somewhat at odds with one another to keep too much power from accumulating in any one place and producing some form of tyranny.

The government was designed to make the president go cap in hand to the Congress for money while the Congress depends on the Executive branch to enforce its laws. The courts were supposed to ride herd on the other two branches to keep them within constitutional bounds while the president appoints justices and Congress approves them and funds them.


All in all, the system has worked pretty well over the last 200+ years. Not that there haven't been rough times, but generally things work out and the Republic shakes, rattles, and rolls on down the road. As Mick Jagger and the boys once sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."


I'd prefer this form of government to just about anything I've ever seen implemented. Theocracies, included.

Crow
August 4th, 2004, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Watch those "tongue-in-cheek" things, it's too easy to bite yourself... ;)

It seems to be pretty much what the founders intended, if you read their writings. They wanted the branches of the government somewhat at odds with one another to keep too much power from accumulating in any one place and producing some form of tyranny.

The government was designed to make the president go cap in hand to the Congress for money while the Congress depends on the Executive branch to enforce its laws. The courts were supposed to ride herd on the other two branches to keep them within constitutional bounds while the president appoints justices and Congress approves them and funds them. As Mick Jagger and the boys once sung, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."

All in all, the system has worked pretty well over the last 200+ years. Not that there haven't been rough times, but generally things work out and the Republic shakes, rattles, and rolls on down the road.

I'd prefer this form of government to just about anything I've ever seen implemented. Theocracies, included.

This form of government has done well. It's not perfect, but those pesky humans keep mucking things up.

My point being, we have a government in which there is a designated leader, but when all is said and done he's not the head of the government.

Oh, well, back to abortion...

Zakath, do you think that elective abortion of a fetus is something that should be legal?

Zakath
August 4th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Crow

This form of government has done well. It's not perfect, but those pesky humans keep mucking things up.Darn those humans. If we could just deal with them, we could really get things to run smoothly, don't you think? ;)


My point being, we have a government in which there is a designated leader, but when all is said and done he's not the head of the government.He's the "head of state". I'm not sure we have a single "head of the government".


Oh, well, back to abortion...

Zakath, do you think that elective abortion of a fetus is something that should be legal? Yes, I do.

My reasoning is that I believe that the less government involvement in the lives of the people, the better. Thus as few things as possible should be illegal. Just those necessary to allow the smooth running of society. Based on human history, this is a somewhat idealistic view, I do realize that. So, over time, we've tried to compromise between too much government interference (totalitarianism) and too much personal freedom (anarchy). The pendulum swings back and forth and tends, over time, to settle somewhere mid-way. I'm not sure the abortion pendulum has had sufficient time to swing to center yet.

That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.

I could say similar things about any number of topics ranging from divorce to going to war.

That's merely my opinion. I do not, at this point, want to endure another debate about "absolute" morality...

[edited to fix incorrect tags - Z]

cattyfan
August 4th, 2004, 08:59 AM
originally posted by Zakath

That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.


given that statement, Zakath, what kind of restriction on abortion would you support?

Crow
August 4th, 2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Zakath


That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.

I could say similar things about any number of topics ranging from divorce to going to war.

That's merely my opinion. I do not, at this point, want to endure another debate about "absolute" morality...

Fair enough. I'll try to stay away from absolute morality.

You say that abortion should not be completely illegal. I agree with that, but suspect that it's a much more restrictive view than yours. I have no problem with ectopic pregnancies being aborted. No good can come of trying to save this pregnancy at this point in our knowledge and technology. I have no problem if there is an acute life-threatening condition that would kill the mother, such as would occur in some injuries or when you have some early ruptured placenta previas, and other clear threats to the mother in which the fetus cannot be saved. I know of a case where a woman was found to have advanced uterine cancer early in her pregnancy, and the cancer was incompatable with not only her life but the fetal life, but a hysterectomy bought her a slim chance of recovery. It's tragic, but I don't think abortion should be illegal there either.

In what circumstances do you think that abortion should be illegal? Personally, when I supported elective abortion, even then I could not support elective abortion of a 26 week fetus. Where do you draw the line?

Sozo
August 4th, 2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Crow


He ain't so bad once you get to know him. But don't tell Sozo that. :chuckle:

Hey! I have a reputation to keep! What are you trying to do to me?

:D

Crow
August 4th, 2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

Hey! I have a reputation to keep! What are you trying to do to me?

:D

Depart from me, oh Ye cursed!

There, does that help? :chuckle:

Delmar
August 4th, 2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Zakath



The solution to human problems are not always as simple as passing another law... something you Christians should be the first to acknowledge.

The point is that the law not just to punish. When the laws are just they tend to teach people what is right. When atrocities are made legal by a society people use it to justify there own wicked behavior. Hitler was a master at it

Sozo
August 4th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by deardelmar

When atrocities are made legal by a society people use it to justify there own wicked behavior.

Well stated! :thumb:

Crow
August 5th, 2004, 03:54 AM
If someone you know is considering abortion...

We cannot know how many abortions could have been prevented if women knew there were resources availiable to help them whether they chose to keep their child or put that child up for adoption. Financial needs are often cited as a reason women abort their children, as well as lack of housing, employment, child care, and medical care.

There are resources availiable and people who are ready to work with a woman in a crisis pregnancy and provide for her needs and the needs of her child, and not just counseling, which isn't going to put a roof over her head, food on her table, provide daycare for her other kids, or put maternity clothes on her back. Here are some groups who will assist them.

Birthright (http://www.birthright.org/htmpages/services.htm) 1-800-550-4900 Help with adoption or keeping the baby and obtaining financial and non-financial resources.

Pregnancy Resource Center locater (http://www.optionline.org/locate.html) Search that locates assistance by zip code.

American Adoptions (http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/index) Helps those who wish to place their baby for adoption find resources and choose an adoptive family.

There are many other resources out there. We never know if someday we will be put in the position of being able to assist a woman to give birth to her child instead of aborting the baby. We need to be ready and willing to help these women.

Lighthouse
August 5th, 2004, 04:02 AM
Go delmar! :bannana: Go delmar!

cattyfan
August 5th, 2004, 11:20 AM
still waiting for Zakath to bother answering the direct questions he was asked...(I'm hoping he'll answer in a straight-forward manner, rather than talking around the question as so many people try.)

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 12:39 PM
Ran across this on the web:

The attached article succintly describes a dilema I have. I don't trust the pro-life crowd to tell the truth about abortion. Nor do I trust planned-parenthood either. Both have a religious/ideological/monetary axe to grind.

I don't think a fetus is a person until it has brain activity. That doesn't happen until about week 20. A non-person does not have rights and thus can be "killed" at the discretion of the mother.

I view the pictures on these threads as suspect at best. They may or may not be doctored. Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others? I think that point is 20 weeks.

-------

Abortion: Sides Battle For Cyberspace Domination
by Patrick Goodenough
January 11, 2001


(CNSNews.com) - Alarmed that women looking for abortion information on the Internet tend to come up with pro-life sites - some containing disturbing images - one of Britain's largest abortion agencies has launched an Internet "gateway" to overcome the problem.

But pro-lifers say the campaign shows that they have truth on their side, that women may reconsider when faced with the reality of what they are considering doing to their unborn children.

Marie Stopes International says its research shows many women looking for "non-judgmental" information about abortion on the World Wide Web instead end up with inaccurate information and shocking pictures of abortions.

"To protect vulnerable women from the worst excesses of anti-abortion websites," MSI said, it has set up a "safe abortion internet gateway" at abortion-help.co.uk, which it hopes will attract more search hits.

"There are sites out there that purport to be offering non-judgmental advice and once you get into them you're confronted with these fairly difficult images, a lot of which ... are manufactured," MSI spokesman Tony Kerridge explained.

In Britain, he said, pro-life organizations - "for whatever reason, I don't know how" -tend to appear higher up the list of sites offered by Internet search engines.

"If women type in keywords [in a search engine like Yahoo!], they tend to get a list that will have anti-abortion organizations before pro-choice organizations.

"A lot of women were deterred from exploring the Internet further because they came up against that kind of blank wall - that was the general thrust that came back from the qualitative research we did."

MSI is advertising the new site address, he said, and "looking into ways of getting our name further up the list on search engines and on more search engines so that we're more prominent."

Kerridge accused some pro-life sites of using deceptive methods.

One anti-abortion group, he said, had set up a site using the name of a pro-abortion organization, but with the suffix .org rather than .com, in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

"People were genuinely typing in what they thought was [the name of] a genuine site that would give non-directive advice and the first thing they saw was this graphic imagery.

"There are people out there who aren't that confident with the Internet, and it's unfair that they should be confronted with that. They're going in for some information to help them make a decision, and they come across particularly nasty materials, almost pornographic stuff."

Some sites, Kerridge charged, used graphics that had been "doctored" with special software or blatantly untrue captions.

Pictures purporting to be "aborted fetuses" were actually stillborn babies. "They'll present a 20-week fetus as an eight-week fetus, for example. They're playing mind-games. We've even seen things that have obviously been doctored. They'll go to pretty much any lengths."

Kerridge also accused some pro-life groups of "misinformation."

Asked for an example, he said they were "forever banging on about what they call post-abortion trauma syndrome." Yet MSI offers women free post-abortion counseling, he said, and "I think less than two percent take it up."

"Most women, their immediate response to having a termination is relief - they've solved the problem, they couldn't contemplate having a baby at that particular point in their lives."

In the FAQ (frequently-asked questions) section of the new abortion site, the question "How will I feel afterwards?" gets the answer: "Very few women experience feelings of extreme guilt or depression after abortion. Initially, most of our clients report feelings of relief, bit it is not uncommon to feel a bit 'low' for a few days."

'Money-spinning business'

MSI carries out around 35,000 abortions a year. Last July it set up a service enabling women to book online for a consultation leading to an abortion.

Invited to respond to its latest campaign, the British pro-life charity Life (lifeuk.org) said MSI was not offering "honest, straightforward help and advice" as it claims.

"By failing to tell the truth about the effects of abortion on the physical and mental health of women they are denying women the right to make a fully informed decision," said Life spokesperson Rachel Heath.

"Abortion always has two victims; one dead, the other wounded," she said. "Where is the practical help and advice for those women who want to keep their unborn child?"

Heath said abortion was a "big money-spinning business and MSI is one cog in the wheel."

Meanwhile the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (spuc.org.uk) said the MSI initiative "proves that the pro-abortionists are becoming ever more desperate to get their message across."

"The campaign emphasizes choice, but in fact it is a campaign against freedom of speech and information," said spokesman Dominic Baster.

"It is a tacit admission that pro-lifers have truth on their side, and that many women think twice about aborting their unborn child when faced with the reality of what abortion entails. Every surgical abortion stops a baby's heart from beating, and this is the truth which Marie Stopes International wants to hide."

Aimiel
August 6th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Where did you come from, who moved the rock, and what is that smell?

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Where did you come from, who moved the rock, and what is that smell?

Is it your habit to answer a post you disagree with by reducing yourself to an ad hominom attack? Isn't that rather childish? If you have problems/disagreement with the argument, perhaps you should address them.

On Fire
August 6th, 2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others?

And until that question is answered (if ever) do you support the murder of innocent babies?

Aimiel
August 6th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Is it your habit to answer a post you disagree with by reducing yourself to an ad hominom attack? Isn't that rather childish? If you have problems/disagreement with the argument, perhaps you should address them. No, but seeing you online was very startling. Yes, I guess it is childish.

OK, the child is human at moment of conception. It is one second two human cells (tissue), and the next it is a human zygote. Next question.

Would you please answer my earlier inquiries?

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

No, but seeing you online was very startling. Yes, I guess it is childish.

OK, the child is human at moment of conception. It is one second two human cells (tissue), and the next it is a human zygote. Next question.

Would you please answer my earlier inquiries?

Sure:

Where did (I) come from? London, England

Who moved the rock? The web-master

What is that smell? Probably the milk you let spoil in the fridger. :)


My origional question was "When is a baby a person? It is evident at conception that the biological creature is human. I argue that it is not a person with the same rights as my five year old until it is a person. I view personhood as starting when the baby has brain activity. One can therefore terminate a pregnancy prior to the point of personhood.

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

And until that question is answered (if ever) do you support the murder of innocent babies?

That is a rather loaded question. It is full of emotionally-laden adgectives and asumes that question has not been answered.

Would it be fair to rephrase your question as:

"Do you support the killing of babies?" The adgectives blur the argument.

Mark

Aimiel
August 6th, 2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by smothers

My origional question was "When is a baby a person? It is evident at conception that the biological creature is human. I argue that it is not a person with the same rights as my five year old until it is a person. I view personhood as starting when the baby has brain activity. One can therefore terminate a pregnancy prior to the point of personhood. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Does your five-year-old have any brain activity? It doesn't seem that you do.

A baby is an infant person, whether you 'view' it that way or not.

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Does your five-year-old have any brain activity? It doesn't seem that you do.



My five year-old has brain activity. It is self-evident that I do as well. One without working brain synapses would not be able to type. You can of course question my mental health or the veracity of my argument.



A baby is an infant person, whether you 'view' it that way or not.

Can you tell me why you think a baby is an infant person with the same rights as you or me?

Aimiel
August 6th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Let's see, if you don't pull them out of the womb, piece by piece, or just take them down into the birth canal low enough to throttle them before their head is 'born' then let them have maybe some food and shelter, they'll become five-year-olds, or maybe older, if they're graced by The Lord, with long enough life, and form their own opinions, and, hopefully, join this struggle against the murder of the un-born. There's not a single one of the 40,000,000 who have been murdered so far that are able to join us, so we have to try to speak for them.

Aimiel
August 6th, 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by smothers

You can of course question my mental health or the veracity of my argument. I do both, thank you.

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I do both, thank you.

Can you tell me why you think my arguments are wrong?

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Let's see, if you don't pull them out of the womb, piece by piece, or just take them down into the birth canal low enough to throttle them before their head is 'born' then let them have maybe some food and shelter, they'll become five-year-olds, or maybe older, if they're graced by The Lord, with long enough life, and form their own opinions, and, hopefully, join this struggle against the murder of the un-born. There's not a single one of the 40,000,000 who have been murdered so far that are able to join us, so we have to try to speak for them.


You are confusing the potentiality of becoming a five year-old with that of having the same rights as a five year-old.

Until a certain point none of those 40,000,000 were persons with the same rights as you or I.

Aimiel
August 6th, 2004, 01:56 PM
You can't separate define someone as a non-being by those type of standards, just for convienience sake. You're trying to find a way to justify murdering that tiny little baby, because you 'say' it is not a living being yet. That it is not capable of thought. That it is not 'viable.' Well, if you weren't given food after you were born, you would have died. That is murder, whether or not you ever had a brain or a thought.

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

You can't separate define someone as a non-being by those type of standards...

What standards would you use?



That it is not capable of thought. That it is not 'viable.'


Actually I argue that a creature is only human if it has brain-waves. You can measure brain-waves. I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.



Well, if you weren't given food after you were born, you would have died. That is murder, whether or not you ever had a brain or a thought.

If you re-read my argument, you will find that I argue a human being is not human until after it has brain-waves. If I were killed prior to having brain waves (before or after birth) that wouldn't be murder. You can only murder a person.

Zakath
August 6th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Actually I argue that a creature is only human if it has brain-waves. You can measure brain-waves. I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.Since what many religionists refer to as "the soul" only seems to be manifest in humans with functioning brains, I would concur with this assessment.

Gerald
August 6th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Is it your habit to answer a post you disagree with by reducing yourself to an ad hominom attack? Isn't that rather childish? If you have problems/disagreement with the argument, perhaps you should address them. Aw, just punch him in the throat and move on.

Balder
August 6th, 2004, 02:21 PM
Aimiel, I don't personally support abortion, but it seems to me that if you don't have any qualms about your God killing billions of people at once in the possibly near future, and sending every single one of them to unspeakable endless torment, you shouldn't have a problem with a mere 40,000,000 fetuses who will get a ticket straight to heaven thanks to the doctors....

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Balder

Aimiel, I don't personally support abortion, but it seems to me that if you don't have any qualms about your God killing billions of people at once in the possibly near future, and sending every single one of them to unspeakable endless torment, you shouldn't have a problem with a mere 40,000,000 fetuses who will get a ticket straight to heaven thanks to the doctors....

If we are to take the bible at face value one comes to the conclusion that sin is passed through the male "seed" and we are all born sinful. I am not sure what the Bible says about when we can be punished for these sins.

Aimiel would probably say that the babies are innocent and not accountable for their sin-nature until some arbitrary time. People past this age are automatically guilty and deserve hell unless they ask for forgiveness from the person who aranged for the sin-nature in the first place.

Zakath
August 6th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by smothers
...Aimiel would probably say that the babies are innocent and not accountable for their sin-nature until some arbitrary time. People past this age are automatically guilty and deserve hell unless they ask for forgiveness from the person who aranged for the sin-nature in the first place. Not presuming to speak for Aimiel, but I would find such a belief remarkably disingenuous for someone who claims divine authority for biblical text.

Making up an alternate soteriology to salve someone's conscience is tantamount to ignoring what the biblical text actually teaches...

I know people who claim to believe what you desribe and they cannot support it scripturally...

Balder
August 6th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Are you saying that the Bible teaches that babies are doomed too?

cattyfan
August 6th, 2004, 03:03 PM
originally posted by Zakath

That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.


I asked this a lot earlier, and I'm still waiting....

given that statement, Zakath, what kind of restriction on abortion would you support?




Originally posted by Zakath


That said, I believe that abortion is the wrong choice in the greater majority of circumstances, but I do not think it should be completely illegal.

I could say similar things about any number of topics ranging from divorce to going to war.

That's merely my opinion. I do not, at this point, want to endure another debate about "absolute" morality...



and Crow asks this:



Fair enough. I'll try to stay away from absolute morality.

You say that abortion should not be completely illegal. I agree with that, but suspect that it's a much more restrictive view than yours. I have no problem with ectopic pregnancies being aborted. No good can come of trying to save this pregnancy at this point in our knowledge and technology. I have no problem if there is an acute life-threatening condition that would kill the mother, such as would occur in some injuries or when you have some early ruptured placenta previas, and other clear threats to the mother in which the fetus cannot be saved. I know of a case where a woman was found to have advanced uterine cancer early in her pregnancy, and the cancer was incompatable with not only her life but the fetal life, but a hysterectomy bought her a slim chance of recovery. It's tragic, but I don't think abortion should be illegal there either.

In what circumstances do you think that abortion should be illegal? Personally, when I supported elective abortion, even then I could not support elective abortion of a 26 week fetus. Where do you draw the line?





now that this thread is "active" again, I'm sure Zakath will get right on answering...:chuckle:

avatar382
August 6th, 2004, 03:04 PM
The attached article succintly describes a dilema I have. I don't trust the pro-life crowd to tell the truth about abortion. Nor do I trust planned-parenthood either. Both have a religious/ideological/monetary axe to grind.

I don't think a fetus is a person until it has brain activity. That doesn't happen until about week 20. A non-person does not have rights and thus can be "killed" at the discretion of the mother.

I view the pictures on these threads as suspect at best. They may or may not be doctored. Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others? I think that point is 20 weeks.

I completely agree with this point of view.

I think that attaining personhood is not unlike attaining adulthood.

Children generally do not have the rights and responsibilites that adults do. They do not have the same capacity. Likewise, At conception, the human zygote does not have a brain, it is not yet capable of and has never possessed thought, consciousness, emotion, etc and for this reason, I don't believe the zygote is a full person.

Another point: Just because a child is a potential adult does not mean it is an adult at that point in time. Thus it is my opinion that the zygote at conception is a potential person, but not a person at that point in time.

One Eyed Jack
August 6th, 2004, 03:24 PM
Any and every human being is a person (regardless of their stage of development), and abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Any and every human being is a person (regardless of their stage of development), and abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

Could you set a trend for me?

What are the arguments that support the statement that every human being is a person regardless of their stage of development.

If the prior sentance is true then of course abortion is murder. If the prior sentance is false then there is a stage in human development in which killing a human is not murder.

Do you agree or disagree. If so why?

One Eyed Jack
August 6th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Could you set a trend for me?

No.

smothers
August 6th, 2004, 04:24 PM
At least you are being a consistant Christian in this matter. Not one person has supplied any argument against my position. I would even accept "I have no other evidence besides what is in the Bible." as an argument. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least I would know there is no extra-biblical reason for your position.

I would assume that if the Bible had a position on the matter, and you based your reasoning on it, you would be able to point to evidence outside the bible to support your position.

If you want to get rid of abortion, you should perhaps come up with a logical defense for it. The abortion pictures are horrific and offensive, but are not compelling evidence against abortion. They only outrage those who see it against your position.

I haven't made up my mind on the matter. Perhaps a Christian can pray for wisdom from God and state why my personhood argument is incorrect.

Mark

cattyfan
August 7th, 2004, 05:49 AM
gosh. what a surprise. still no response from Zakath. :rolleyes:

Lighthouse
August 7th, 2004, 06:28 AM
He's still circumventing my question to him, elsewhere. Although, he gave a more direct answer, last time.

Zakath
August 7th, 2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Balder

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that babies are doomed too? Some folks believe that, yes.

“Babies are born as the damned fruit of the lust of their redeemed parents. From the first, they are the offspring of Gehenna or Hell; they are justly children of wrath because they are sinners. If they die unbaptized, they are condemned to everlasting torments for the guilt of their birth alone?
- Pope Gregory I


Infant damnation was one of the harshest of Calvin's doctrines. Believing that all human beings were guilty of original sin through their participation (as biological and spiritual descendants) in Adam's sin, the early reformed thinkers taught that the infant in the cradle, without God's unmerited grace, was as liable to damnation as any adult. The best known account of this belief in New England letters is in Michael Wigglesworth's poem, The Day of Doom, first published in 1662 and widely reprinted and read for over a hundred years. Wigglesworth described the pleas of unelect infants who had been cast into hell to God and God's uncompromising reply:

"O Great Creator, why was our nature
Depraved and forlorn?
Why so defil'd, and made so vile
While we were yet unborn?

You sinners are and such a share
As sinners may expect
Such you shall have: for I do save
None but my own Elect."

Notes on Congregationalism and Calvinism in Early 19th Century New England (http://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?DocID=963)

The idea that infants were not damned was promoted in the U.S. mainly by the Unitarians in the early 19th century...


[edited to add resources - Z]

Zakath
August 7th, 2004, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

gosh. what a surprise. still no response from Zakath. :rolleyes: Hardly.

Try yesterday afternoon...

Post #94 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=573371#post573371)

Is that what you were looking for? :think:

Zakath
August 7th, 2004, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

He's still circumventing my question to him, elsewhere. Although, he gave a more direct answer, last time.

"circumvent"? How so? Which question?

Sozo
August 7th, 2004, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by smothers



I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.



I guess you are still waiting for your "rights" to kick in, uh?

Lighthouse
August 7th, 2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

"circumvent"? How so? Which question?
The one about your relation ship with God. All I wanted was a direct yes or no, and you didn't give one. But that's another thread.

Zakath
August 7th, 2004, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

The one about your relation ship with God. All I wanted was a direct yes or no, and you didn't give one. But that's another thread. Here's a thought, dimhouse, if it's on another thread, then why not bring it up there?

If you have nothing substantive to contribute, why try to drag this thread off topic? :think:

Lighthouse
August 7th, 2004, 07:33 AM
Which comes first? Heartbeat or brain waves? Either way, I would argue that if one of those is where life begins then pro-abortionists are free game...seeing as how they have neither a heart or a brain.

Zakath
August 7th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Which comes first? Heartbeat or brain waves? It is immaterial. One can sometimes use electrical stimulus to keep a heart beating after brain death, though an individual is considered legally non-living at that point.


Either way, I would argue that if one of those is where life begins then pro-abortionists are free game... What's a "free game"? Something you download without having to pay for it?

Lighthouse
August 7th, 2004, 09:04 AM
free game means that you can kill it without consequence. It was a joke.

cattyfan
August 7th, 2004, 11:33 AM
No, Zakath. I was referring to the questions posed to you in posts #70 and #71, and restated for your convenience in post #100.

Anne
August 7th, 2004, 12:50 PM
An unborn baby's heart starts beating by the 21st day of life. Brain waves are detectable by 45 days. Abortion is definitely murder. Little babies are being murdered who have a beating heart and brain waves.

Art Deco
August 7th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by smothers Until a certain point none of those 40,000,000 were persons with the same rights as you or I.


At the moment of conception that individual, at that point in the human life cycle, had the same rights as you do to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

avatar382
August 7th, 2004, 10:15 PM
What defines a person? What characteristics does a "person" have? Personally I believe a "person" to have the following qualities:

-Alive
-Human in Origin
-Sentient (defined as consciously possessing interests, and a sense of self among other things)

Do you agree that a being lacking one of these three qualities is not a person? If not, why?

Poly
August 7th, 2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

-Sentient (defined as consciously possessing interests, and a sense of self among other things)


This one seems to describe babies who have an interest in sucking their thumb in the womb. And others who have an interest in avoiding irritation when a "stress" test is done, causing them to kick up a storm while in the womb. And most unfortunately, others who have an interest in trying to avoid pain, by thrashing around violently just before they are murdered in the womb.

avatar382
August 7th, 2004, 10:50 PM
This one seems to describe babies who have an interest in sucking their thumb in the womb. And others who have an interest in avoiding irritation when a "stress" test is done, causing them to kick up a storm while in the womb. And most unfortunately, others who have an interest in trying to avoid pain, by thrashing around violently just before they are murdered in the womb.

My understanding is that the scenarios you describe typically happen during the late 2nd and early 3rd trimester, after the fetus has developed a functional central nervous system.

How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

My argument is that personhood develops gradually, the zygote at a few days old doesn't yet have it, while the fetus at the 2nd/3rd trimester does.

Poly
August 7th, 2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by avatar382
How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.


Wow, such a factual sounding statement and yet it's nothing more than some idiot's opinion.

SOTK
August 7th, 2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by avatar382
How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish........

You're disgusting. :vomit: I hope you're not a parent.

avatar382
August 7th, 2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Wow, such a factual sounding statement and yet it's nothing more than some idiot's opinion.

It's not opinion, it's fact.

If you disagree, why don't you add something positive to the discussion and tell us what sentience a brainless cluster of stem cells, which is what a human zygote is at concecption, could possibly have?

avatar382
August 7th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by SOTK

You're disgusting. :vomit: I hope you're not a parent.

I'm disgusting because I merely pointed out the fact that a blob of cells with no central nervous system, brain, nerves, spine (zygote at conception) shares the quality of not being sentinent (not having interests) with simple organisms like bacteria, ameobas, etc? :confused:

Anne
August 7th, 2004, 11:26 PM
By eight weeks the hands and feet of the unborn baby are almost perfectly formed, and fingerprints are developing.

By nine weeks the unborn baby is sucking her/his thumb.

SOTK
August 7th, 2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

I'm disgusting because I merely pointed out the fact that a blob of cells with no central nervous system, brain, nerves, spine (zygote at conception) shares the quality of not being sentinent (not having interests) with simple organisms like bacteria, ameobas, etc? :confused:

Yes. :down:

avatar382
August 7th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by SOTK

Yes. :down:

Are you suggesting that my statement was in error? If so, could you please offer an argument against it? (specifically that zygotes at conception are not sentient beings)

Or are you merely playing "kill the messenger" who is only repeating what is verifiable fact?

Anne
August 8th, 2004, 12:02 AM
Typical pro-abort:doh:

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart, brain waves and are fully formed or almost fully formed.
An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.:bannana:

avatar382
August 8th, 2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Anne

Typical pro-abort:doh:

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart, brain waves and are fully formed or almost fully formed.
An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.:bannana:

Things you should know about my position:

1.) I personally look down on abortion in general and believe 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be criminalized. You should stop bringing up the evils of aborting the fully/almost fully developed, you are preaching to the choir.

2.) I believe the government should regulate the minimum possible. I believe the power of the goverment should be limited to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its people.

My motivation for supporting the legalization of 1st trimester abortion ONLY is because I see its restriction as unnecessary and dangerous government involvement.

3.) Crucial: The disctintion between sentinent unborn and not sentinent unborn is important to me because I consider sentience to be requisite to personhood. Thus, not sentinent = not a person.

4.) I am hoping that this thread evolves into an interesting philosophical discussion instead of the emotionally charged insult fest it currently is...

Crow
August 8th, 2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by avatar382

My understanding is that the scenarios you describe typically happen during the late 2nd and early 3rd trimester, after the fetus has developed a functional central nervous system.

How about at the time of conception? What is the fetus then? A collection of cells that frankly has no more interests than a culture of bacteria in a petri dish.

My argument is that personhood develops gradually, the zygote at a few days old doesn't yet have it, while the fetus at the 2nd/3rd trimester does.

I've got a question for you then--do you believe that abortion of viable infants should be illegal? At this time, there are abortionists who perform elective abortions at 28 weeks.

Here's data for survivability and the source cited. It varies somewhat by which source you pull up, the newest ones have the highest percentage of survivability since medical techniques improve constantly.

Survival rates by gestational birth age Weeks of gestation at birth

23 weeks- 30% survived
24 weeks- 52% survived
25 weeks- 76% survived

1MacDonald H, Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2002). Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics, 110(5): 1024–1027.

3Wood NS, et al. (2000). Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(6): 378–84.

Here is an example of a physician who does elective abortions 26 weeks LMP which works out to about 27-28 weeks of gestation. Is this acceptable under your "personhood" qualifiers. He does "medically indicated" abortions for fetal anomalies or genetic disorder or medical problems to 36 weeks. Sounds legit, until you apply the personhood theory. Since by your qualifications personhood is a consideration, this guy is killing persons because of their disabilities. Or do the disabled have less personhood?

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this old saw has been played out time and time again. Historically, when personhood has been used a qualifier to granting human rights, it has spawned evil consequence. The US history of slavery. Selling one's kids into brothels in Thailand. Firebombing "mudpeople's" churches. Genocide against Jews and Gypsies. "Personhood" definitions, which are arbitrary, don't lead to good, the lead to evil.

If personhood is indeed a legitimate entity, then when does it occur? 16 weeks? 20 weeks?

(this is not directed to you specifically, avatar 382)

If those who demand that Christians demonstrate scientifically when "ensoulment" occurs would be so kind as to give us evidence of the same quality they demand indicating when "personhood" is invested, then we would at least have some basis for a more productive discussion. I haven't really seen much evidence that one's arbitrary designation of personhood being a good way to determine whether or not one is entitled to the most basic of human rights--the things which are necessary for bodily survival. I've seen much historical evidence that when a designation of personhood determines said rights, the end achievement is invariably evil.

cattyfan
August 8th, 2004, 07:41 AM
Keeping this on the active page...

Zakath,

please read post #117. thanks.

avatar382
August 8th, 2004, 11:01 AM
I've got a question for you then--do you believe that abortion of viable infants should be illegal? At this time, there are abortionists who perform elective abortions at 28 weeks.

Not only do I believe that abortions at the "age of viability" should be illegal, I believe abortions should be illegal at the development of the central nervous system, which is generally agreed to be sometime in the second trimester, weeks 12 - 24.

I think drawing the line for abortions at 12 weeks is reasonable. Any later than that and the fetus may be a sentinent being...


If those who demand that Christians demonstrate scientifically when "ensoulment" occurs would be so kind as to give us evidence of the same quality they demand indicating when "personhood" is invested, then we would at least have some basis for a more productive discussion. I haven't really seen much evidence that one's arbitrary designation of personhood being a good way to determine whether or not one is entitled to the most basic of human rights--the things which are necessary for bodily survival. I've seen much historical evidence that when a designation of personhood determines said rights, the end achievement is invariably evil.

Simply put, the rights to the things necessary to bodily survival are obtained when a being is capable of an interest in bodily survival.

A fetus at 24 weeks that can be seen squirming in the womb while a physican dismembers it clearly shows this interest. At conception, the zygote does not. It is not yet capable of having interests...

I don't think sentinence is an arbitrary disctinction, we as people use it all the time.

Consider this:
-Generally speaking, killing a human is a henious crime.
-Most people will agree that killing an mammal such as dog, cat, or dolphin is henious. (animal abuse laws)
However few object to the killing simpler animal life, like insects and lobsters. (we boil lobsters alive before eating them)
Fewer still object to the killing of bacteria.
No one objects to killing plants, since we eat them...

Why is it that we can legally "put down" our dog, but it's generally much harder to "put down" a human being?

Why is it that taking a saw and cutting your cat in half would land you in jail for animal abuse, yet fishermen bisect earthworms in a similar manner all the time?

Why is it that even the most hardcore animal rights activist has no problem killing plants?

You get the point...

Sentinence is what makes people people, it is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Art Deco
August 8th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by avatar382

Things you should know about my position:

1.) I personally look down on abortion in general and believe 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be criminalized. You should stop bringing up the evils of aborting the fully/almost fully developed, you are preaching to the choir. On what grounds do you consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion a crime?




Posted by Avatar:
2.) I believe the government should regulate the minimum possible. I believe the power of the goverment should be limited to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its people. I agree the government should be in the business of protecting "Life." The Republicans passed the ban on "partial birth" abortion over the objections of the pro-abortion Democrats. Bush signed the bill into law after Clinton vetoed the same ban twice before. The point is our government "IS" engaged in protecting "LIFE."



Posted by Avatar:
My motivation for supporting the legalization of 1st trimester abortion ONLY is because I see its restriction as unnecessary and dangerous government involvement. Restriction unnecessary and dangerous government involvement? Wait a minute, a government of the people by the people and for the people are divided on protecting human life. The Republicans are for protecting human life, Democrats are for destroying human life. Obviously we need more Republicans and less Democrats in Congress. The issue of abortion will only be resolved in favor of the baby's life, when Democrats are replaced by Republicans in Congress.




Posted by Avatar:
3.) Crucial: The disctintion between sentinent unborn and not sentinent unborn is important to me because I consider sentience to be requisite to personhood. Thus, not sentinent = not a person. You have retreated into an illogical intellectual cul-de-sac. Observation, the basis of scientific inquirey, requires you to acknowledge that the human life cycle at its begining, left undisturbed by an abortionist, will under normal circumstances provide a live natural birth of a human child.

Posted by Avatar:
4.) I am hoping that this thread evolves into an interesting philosophical discussion instead of the emotionally charged insult fest it currently is...


I'm hoping that this thread will evolve into a logical discussion of of abortion.

avatar382
August 8th, 2004, 12:40 PM
On what grounds do you consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion a crime?

As I've stated before, I consider anything 1.) alive, 2.) human, and 3.) sentient to be a human person.

By the 2nd trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, gaining sentience, and therefore, I believe is a person with full rights.


I agree the government should be in the business of protecting "Life."

You forgot that I added the qualifier "of people". My whole point is that in the first trimester, a zygote is not a person because it lacks sentience.


You have retreated into an illogical intellectual cul-de-sac. Observation, the basis of scientific inquirey, requires you to acknowledge that the human life cycle at its begining, left undisturbed by an abortionist, will under normal circumstances provide a live natural birth of a human child.

You are confusing a potential person with an actual person. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? NO! The fact that a 1 week old zygote may become a person if undisturbed does not mean that *at that point in time* the zygote is, in fact, a person.

Time is everything. Children are potential adults, but they are not given the rights of adults until they are actually adults...

Art Deco
August 8th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

As I've stated before, I consider anything 1.) alive, 2.) human, and 3.) sentient to be a human person. Why do you qualify human life at all? What gives you the right to qualify human life.

Posted by Avatar:
By the 2nd trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, gaining sentience, and therefore, I believe is a person with full rights. From conception to natural death is the human life cycle. Reason and logic would require one to admit that an uninterrupted pregnancy leads to a live birth. All that is required is about nine months of normal developement. It is human at conception and it is human at birth and it is human at death. A continum that represents the human life cycle. Why would any sane individual interrupt that lifecycle without acknowledging they have terminated a human life at what ever stage it was in?



Posted by Avatar:
You forgot that I added the qualifier "of people". My whole point is that in the first trimester, a zygote is not a person because it lacks sentience. Again, who gave you the right to qualify human life? Are you playing God? The human life cycle in all its many manifestations shows your right to qualify human life to be erroneous and morally repugnant.



Posted by Avatar:
You are confusing a potential person with an actual person. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? NO! The fact that a 1 week old zygote may become a person if undisturbed does not mean that *at that point in time* the zygote is, in fact, a person. Is an acorn a tree? Yes, in its early stages of growth. One thing is certain, destroy the acorn and there will be no fully developed tree. Destroy the zygote and that human being in its earliest stage of developement will cease to grow and develope into a full term baby.

Posted by Avatar:
Time is everything. Children are potential adults, but they are not given the rights of adults until they are actually adults... True, but killing the child takes away any chance at adulthood. Similarly, killing the developing child in the womb takes away any chance at reaching adulthood with all the rights obtained by the transition from infancy to adulthood.

smothers
August 8th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Anne

An unborn baby's heart starts beating by the 21st day of life. Brain waves are detectable by 45 days. Abortion is definitely murder. Little babies are being murdered who have a beating heart and brain waves.


A heart beat is a sign of a working hypothalmus. The brain is working on auto-pilot. The heartbeat, as Zakath pointed out in a previous post, does not make someone a person.

Brain waves aren't detectible until about the 20th week. Brain synapses don't start to develop until the early to mid second tri-mester. Without brain-waves it isn't a person.

smothers
August 8th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Anne

By eight weeks the hands and feet of the unborn baby are almost perfectly formed, and fingerprints are developing.

By nine weeks the unborn baby is sucking her/his thumb.

Looks good in a GE commercial, but it doesn't prove conciousness. By day one the baby has the DNA instruction set necessary to carry it into full development. It is clearly alive, but isn't human until around the 20th week.

smothers
August 8th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Anne

Most abortions are not being performed immediately after conception.

That would be rather difficult to do. The spermazoa and ovum don't merge until about 12 hours after intercourse. The zygote doesn't travel down the falopian tube for several hours (days?)



Most abortions are being done on unborn babies who already have a beating heart,


It is true that the heart is beating, but that does not mean the fetus is a human in any constitutional sense.



An unborn baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb definitely indicates a sentient being.



This isn't true. A baby of nine weeks sucking his/her thumb indicates that the lower brain functions common in all animals exist. The sucking motion is instinctual. Without this ability, the baby would not be able to take in nutrients without its umbilical chord.

Nature is crueler than any abortion doctor could every be. The evidence that two-thirds of conceptions fail regardless of abortion provides a powerful new argument in favor of choice in the early trimesters. Perhaps it is possible that God ordains, for reasons we cannot know, that vast numbers of souls be created at conception and then naturally denied the chance to become babies. But science's new understanding of the tenuous link between conception and birth makes a strong case that what happens early in pregnancy is not yet life in the constitutional sense.

The zygotes that do implant soon transform into embryos. During its early growth, an embryo is sufficiently undifferentiated that it is impossible to distinguish which tissue will end up as part of the new life and which will be discarded as placenta. By about the sixth week the embryo gives way to the fetus, which has a recognizable human shape. (It was during the embryo-fetus transition, Augustine believed, that the soul is acquired, and this was Catholic doctrine for most of the period from the fifth century until 1869.) Also around the sixth week, faint electrical activity can be detected from the fetal nervous system. Some pro-life commentators say this means that brain activity begins during the sixth week, but, according to Dr. Martha Herbert, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, there is little research to support that claim. Most neurologists assume that electrical activity in the first trimester represents random neuron firings as nerves connect--basically, tiny spasms.

The fetus's heart begins to beat, and by about the twentieth week the fetus can kick. Kicking is probably a spasm, too, at least initially, because the fetal cerebral cortex, the center of voluntary brain function, is not yet "wired," its neurons still nonfunctional. (Readings from 20- to 22-week-old premature babies who died at birth show only very feeble EEG signals.) From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically "impossible" before these connections form, says Fisk, of the Imperial College School of Medicine.

smothers
August 8th, 2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Why do you qualify human life at all? What gives you the right to qualify human life.



The question of humanness is one of those hard questions. Its implications are serious and profound. As sentient beings we have (or were granted by God) an intellect that allows us to tackle these hard-questions. We have the right to qualify a human life, because we HAVE to qualify a human life. Who else is going to do it?



Posted by Avatar: From conception to natural death is the human life cycle. Reason and logic would require one to admit that an uninterrupted pregnancy leads to a live birth. All that is required is about nine months of normal developement.



No one is disputing that.



It is human at conception and it is human at birth and it is human at death.

If you define a human as one that has human DNA, you are correct. A human being is not neccesarily a person.



Why would any sane individual interrupt that lifecycle without acknowledging they have terminated a human life at what ever stage it was in?



It is true that you have terminated life. All members of our taxonomic domain (look it up.) are alive right after conception. Don't get hung up on this obvious fact. Potentiality for personhood does not equal personhood.



Again, who gave you the right to qualify human life?


As sentient beings we are born with the rights to qualify human life. Obviously we can't do this arbitrarily. The one thing that divides us biological and philosophically from other animals is our ability to think. This ability isn't even its beginning stages until around the 21st week.




Are you playing God?



Are we not playing God when we place low doses of small pox in a child to protect him from small pox infection? God is rather silent on these specific issues. I know of no sacred text that describes embryonic development in the same detail as a medical journal. One is left with the assumption, that God has left the decision to us.



Posted by Avatar: True, but killing the child takes away any chance at adulthood. Similarly, killing the developing child in the womb takes away any chance at reaching adulthood with all the rights obtained by the transition from infancy to adulthood.

Get to a different argument. This one isn't working.

Art Deco
August 8th, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by smothers

The question of humanness is one of those hard questions. Its implications are serious and profound. As sentient beings we have (or were granted by God) an intellect that allows us to tackle these hard-questions. We have the right to qualify a human life, because we HAVE to qualify a human life. Who else is going to do it?

There is no right to qualify human life. Human life in its natural state is self evident. It needs no qualification. The only purpose for qualifying human life is to make an arrogant and presumptive case for its destruction.




Posted by Smothers:
If you define a human as one that has human DNA, you are correct. A human being is not neccesarily a person. If you are basing the right to kill a baby on its state of maturity, you have lost the argument. You are denying the baby the right to life on the basis that it has not reached sufficient maturity which is no fault of its own at the time of its murder.



Posted by Smothers:
It is true that you have terminated life. All members of our taxonomic domain (look it up.) are alive right after conception. Don't get hung up on this obvious fact. Potentiality for personhood does not equal personhood. Yes, you have terminated "HUMAN" life, not just life in general. Don't overlook that point.

Potential human life is a lifeless argument that just won't wash intellectually. Personhood is established at conception. Gestation is the process of fleshing out the baby's personhood in the human cycle of life.


Posted by Smothers:
As sentient beings we are born with the rights to qualify human life. Obviously we can't do this arbitrarily. The one thing that divides us biological and philosophically from other animals is our ability to think. This ability isn't even its beginning stages until around the 21st week. This is an asinine argument that is stripped of all rationality. How intellectually arrogant one must be to presumptively qualify a human being on the basis of its ability to think. This argument calls into question your ability to think.



Posted by Smothers:
Are we not playing God when we place low doses of small pox in a child to protect him from small pox infection? God is rather silent on these specific issues. I know of no sacred text that describes embryonic development in the same detail as a medical journal. One is left with the assumption, that God has left the decision to us.The God given right to murder has always been left to us. As is all other moral judgements. You have not met the moral standard required to authorize the murder of an unborn child.



Posted by Smothers:
Get to a different argument. This one isn't working. Allow me to interpret: Your argument is very persuasive and I can not present an adequate response to counter your argument. :help:

Anne
August 9th, 2004, 12:32 AM
Smothers, you really have outdated information regarding fetal development.

It seems that you haven't progressed beyond the ancient belief that life begins at quickening which averages around 16 weeks but is felt by the mother by 20 weeks at the latest.

The unborn child is active long before it is felt by the mother. There is a video clip that clearly shows a 12 week old unborn child 'walking" in the womb.

Those who favour death for the so-called unwanted tend to say things like it is only a reflex. Similar lies used to try justifify abortion are also used to try justify killing of unwanted people that are already born such as Terri Schiavo. Her husband wants her dead and claims that she is in a permanent vegetative state and it is just reflexes. Well anyone who isn't in a permanent vegetative state themselves can see on the video clips on her website that she is definitely responding and would do much better with therapy etc.

Anne
August 9th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Here is the link to the video clip: 12 week old baby walking in the womb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40322000/rm/_40322937_foetus13_young28_vi.ram)

Terri Schiavo's web site: http://www.terrisfight.org/

Lighthouse
August 9th, 2004, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Here's a thought, dimhouse, if it's on another thread, then why not bring it up there?

If you have nothing substantive to contribute, why try to drag this thread off topic? :think:
I posted a one time post, in response to catty fan's post about a similar topic. I did nothing to drag this thread off topic. You are the one who responded top me here, instead of PM. And then you resort to this? I thought five year olds couldn't get married, let alone pastor a church.


To be on-topic, so Zakath doesn't start whinig again, Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Anne is right. Welcome to TOL, Anne. You have impressed me thus far.

Lighthouse
August 9th, 2004, 02:45 AM
It's time to have some fun.


Originally posted by smothers

A heart beat is a sign of a working hypothalmus. The brain is working on auto-pilot. The heartbeat, as Zakath pointed out in a previous post, does not make someone a person.
Zakath didn't point out anything. He specualted, based on his own personal beliefs. Human in origin + beating heart = person. All humans have th basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [at least in America]...and unborn fetuses have those rights. Those who have been born have those rights, even when they have no others. That doesn't make them less than a person, or less than a human.


Brain waves aren't detectible until about the 20th week. Brain synapses don't start to develop until the early to mid second tri-mester. Without brain-waves it isn't a person.
See above.

P.S.
Learn to spell spermatazoa.

smothers
August 9th, 2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Anne

Smothers, you really have outdated information regarding fetal development.

It seems that you haven't progressed beyond the ancient belief that life begins at quickening which averages around 16 weeks but is felt by the mother by 20 weeks at the latest.


You are incorrectly stating my position. Life begins at conception. Personhood begins at sentients.



The unborn child is active long before it is felt by the mother. There is a video clip that clearly shows a 12 week old unborn child 'walking" in the womb.


Walking in the womb is not an adequate determination of sentients.




Those who favour death for the so-called unwanted tend to say things like it is only a reflex. Similar lies used to try justifify abortion are also used to try justify killing of unwanted people that are already born such as Terri Schiavo. Her husband wants her dead and claims that she is in a permanent vegetative state and it is just reflexes. Well anyone who isn't in a permanent vegetative state themselves can see on the video clips on her website that she is definitely responding and would do much better with therapy etc.

If Terry Schiavo is not self-aware, she is not a person. I've seen the video, and it does make a good case for her awareness. Her "husband" should give up custody and allow her family to give therapy.

You do make a good point about the connection between abortion and euthenasia. I place the demarkation line for abortion at 12 weeks. One should be ultra-conservative when it comes to terminating a life. Although euthenasia is outside the scope of this thread, one could make a case on the side of caution to not allow euthenasia on someone who could possibly come back to sentients. Logically that conflicts with my assertion that anyone without sentients is not human and can therefore be ethically killed. I will have to think about it.

smothers
August 9th, 2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

There is no right to qualify human life. Human life in its natural state is self evident. It needs no qualification. The only purpose for qualifying human life is to make an arrogant and presumptive case for its destruction.



I am not qualifying life; I am qualifying personhood. As you say life is self-evident. I don't see how qualifying human life is arrogant or presumptive.



If you are basing the right to kill a baby on its state of maturity, you have lost the argument. You are denying the baby the right to life on the basis that it has not reached sufficient maturity which is no fault of its own at the time of its murder.



I am basing the right to kill a baby based on its state of maturity. A fetus has no rights until it has reached a certain state of maturity. Can you tell me why the fetus does have a right? I have clearly espoused my standard, what is yours?



Posted by Smothers: Yes, you have terminated "HUMAN" life, not just life in general. Don't overlook that point.


I have not overlooked that point. In fact, because the fetus is a member of the human species, I am ultra-conservative in the demarkation line between non-person and person.



Personhood is established at conception. Gestation is the process of fleshing out the baby's personhood in the human cycle of life.


Could you elaborate on this please? I am interested in the flow of logic that leads you to this conclusion.



This is an asinine argument that is stripped of all rationality. How intellectually arrogant one must be to presumptively qualify a human being on the basis of its ability to think.


I can see how to can arive at this conclusion. Let me clarify, a human being is a person when it is self-aware. Can you tell me why this is presumptive, and provide a logical argument for the different standard that you use?



The God given right to murder has always been left to us. As is all other moral judgements. You have not met the moral standard required to authorize the murder of an unborn child.


An action (not reason for) is right or wrong regardless of the morality of the person doing it. Adolf Hitler was right in creating the autobahn, regardless of his immoral behavior. Hitler was evil, this ONE act was good.



Your argument is very persuasive and I can not present an adequate response to counter your argument.

The crux of the arguments seem to me to all come down to potentiality. If I misstate your argument below please let me know.

1) A fetus is a human-being and alive.
2) If the fetus is allowed to mature it will grow to a mature adult.
3) Because the fetus has the potential to grow to a mature adult, we should not kill it.

My argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

Could you point out the weaknesses in this argument.?

smothers
August 9th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Human in origin + beating heart = person.



Why?


All humans have th basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [at least in America]...and unborn fetuses have those rights.

I am asuming you are talking about "legal rights". Unborn fetuses do not have these rights. In fact a person doesn't even have full rights until the 18th year. Legally, (maybe not ethically) a mother can kill her child late into her pregnancy.



Those who have been born have those rights...


I agree, those who are born and are sentient have these rights.

Crow
August 9th, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by smothers

The crux of the arguments seem to me to all come down to potentiality. If I misstate your argument below please let me know.

1) A fetus is a human-being and alive.
2) If the fetus is allowed to mature it will grow to a mature adult.
3) Because the fetus has the potential to grow to a mature adult, we should not kill it.

My argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.


That sums it up pretty well. I base human rights on humanity. You base them upon whether you grant them "personhood" or not.

smothers
August 9th, 2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Crow

That sums it up pretty well. I base human rights on humanity. You base them upon whether you grant them "personhood" or not.


Why do you think humanity is a better basis than personhood?

One Eyed Jack
August 9th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Doesn't the US government consider a corporation to be a "person," in a legal sense?

avatar382
August 9th, 2004, 03:31 PM
That sums it up pretty well. I base human rights on humanity. You base them upon whether you grant them "personhood" or not.

Could you define what you mean by "humanity"?

cattyfan
August 9th, 2004, 04:18 PM
Keeping this on the active page...

Zakath,

please read post #117. thanks.

Anne
August 9th, 2004, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE]Smother's argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

Could you point out the weaknesses in this argument.?[QUOTE]

Yes, of course, I thought you would never ask.:bannana:

1) Yes, agreed, a fetus is a human being and is alive. :jump:

2) No, the first definition listed for a 'person' in both my Oxford and Encarta dictionary is simply "a human being'.
:bannana:

3) Maybe, may be not. Do you believe it is therefore OK to go out and club baby seals to death (perhaps just for fun):kookoo:

4) It is long before 20 weeks. Have you looked at the video clip I attached or seen the Silent Scream. In both of them the unborn baby is 12 weeks old and obviously has sentience( feeling and perception).

5) No, see my answer to number two.
:bannana:

6) No. Have you forgotten the Ten Commandments God gave us. One of them is: "Thou shalt not kill" :doh:

7) No. See my answer to number six (above).


Well, well, Smothers only your first point is correct. I will be generous and give you half for your third point.
My, my, that is 1,5 out of 7, i.e. only 21%. Smothers you really need some :help:. You need to do much more research on fetal development, ethics and especially God's commandments.

When you have done that, you can come back to us in a few weeks or months time. I think you will then be ready to apologize, especially to the unborn babies who are being killed because people like yourself rationalize murder.

Poly
August 9th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Anne

[QUOTE]Smother's argument is as follows:

1) A fetus is a human being and alive.
2) A person is a human being that has sentients.
3) It is not ethically wrong to kill a creature that is not a person.
4) The fetus does not have the biological components necessary for sentients until the the 20th week.
5) The fetus is not a person until the 20th week.
6) It is an ethicaly nuetral event to kill a fetus prior to the 20th week.
7) It is therefore ethically nuetral to kill a fetus prior to the 12th week.

Could you point out the weaknesses in this argument.?[QUOTE]

Yes, of course, I thought you would never ask.:bannana:

1) Yes, agreed, a fetus is a human being and is alive. :jump:

2) No, the first definition listed for a 'person' in both my Oxford and Encarta dictionary is simply "a human being'.
:bannana:

3) Maybe, may be not. Do you believe it is therefore OK to go out and club baby seals to death (perhaps just for fun):kookoo:

4) It is long before 20 weeks. Have you looked at the video clip I attached or seen the Silent Scream. In both of them the unborn baby is 12 weeks old and obviously has sentience( feeling and perception).

5) No, see my answer to number two.
:bannana:

6) No. Have you forgotten the Ten Commandments God gave us. One of them is: "Thou shalt not kill" :doh:

7) No. See my answer to number six (above).


Well, well, Smothers only your first point is correct. I will be generous and give you half for your third point.
My, my, that is 1,5 out of 7, i.e. only 21%. Smothers you really need some :help:. You need to do much more research on fetal development, ethics and especially God's commandments.

When you have done that, you can come back to us in a few weeks or months time. I think you will then be ready to apologize, especially to the unborn babies who are being killed because people like yourself rationalize murder.



SMACK!!!

smothers
August 9th, 2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Doesn't the US government consider a corporation to be a "person," in a legal sense?

(Putting on MBA hat.) A corporation is considered a person so it can be sued and pay taxes. Obviously it can't vote or be incarserated.

smothers
August 9th, 2004, 10:06 PM
1) Yes, agreed, a fetus is a human being and is alive.



2) No, the first definition listed for a 'person' in both my Oxford and Encarta dictionary is simply "a human being'.



In an applied ethics discussion, 'person' usually refers to a morale person. Perhaps you should investigate morale personhood as it applies to applied ethics.



3) Maybe, may be not. Do you believe it is therefore OK to go out and club baby seals to death (perhaps just for fun)


Don't be absurd.



4) It is long before 20 weeks. Have you looked at the video clip I attached or seen the Silent Scream. In both of them the unborn baby is 12 weeks old and obviously has sentience( feeling and perception).



The silent scream? You weren't aware how thoroughly discredited that production is? Even if it is acurate I've placed the demarkation line at 12 weeks.



6) No. Have you forgotten the Ten Commandments God gave us. One of them is: "Thou shalt not kill"


or Thou shalt not kill unlawfully? If a baby isn't a moral person, you aren't murdering it. If you are going to quote the 10 commandments, shouldn't both of us agree on them as an authority?




Well, well, Smothers only your first point is correct. I will be generous and give you half for your third point.
My, my, that is 1,5 out of 7, i.e. only 21%. Smothers you really need some :help:. You need to do much more research on fetal development, ethics and especially God's commandments.


The only evidence you have provided is the Silent Scream propoganda and a code of ethics borrowed from Hannibal. Can you provide anything beyond this to support your position?

Husband&Father
August 9th, 2004, 10:27 PM
The link between "personhood" and brain activity is an arbitrary one made up for the convenience of the pro choice advocate.

At best it is mearly a personal definition without the support of the medical establishment (who do not try to establish personhood in the metaphysical sense) and in defiance of common sense.

Further, the premise that fetus’ do not have brain activity until 20 weeks is completely false. The brain is still developing to be sure and will continue to grow in capacity as the pregnancy works to term but the movements (yawning, thumb sucking, stretching etc.) that pre 20 weak babies routinely demonstrate (as well as their reaction to noises) are much to complex to be mere reflexes or automatic. Nope, the brain is quite active.

The brain activity argument is bogus. If brain activity determines personhood than does diminished brain activity (brain damaged accident victims) diminish personhood. Is a mental illiness victim who had a frontal lobotomy only half a person?

If the presence of any brain activity makes one a person than a fetus is a person. If the brain activity has to be a certain type and quality of brain activity then we have to admit that some 5 year olds (retarded, comotosed) are not people. The whole stupid theory falls apart.

Smothers and others can’t stand the guilt so they discredit prolifers because they are "religious" (as if that is an automatic disqualification). If a photo gives them pause, if they see the picture and find themselves admitting that the fetus is a baby, they accuse the photographer of "doctoring" (what a choice of words) the photo. The alternative to calling the photos doctored is calling themselves killers.

Abortion advocates know right from wrong, that’s why they must always qualify their support for abortion. They can’t just say "I’m for abortion period" they have to say "I’m for abortion…er…up until 20 weeks…because…you see…a baby does not have brain activity…well not much brain activity until 20 weeks…so I’m for abortion up to 20 weeks…but I will not condemn those who are for abortion after 20 weeks…because even though I…personally…believe that the baby is a person after 20 weeks others may not and who am I to say when a person…er…fetus…is a person…even though I decided that it’s at 20 weeks…and I know it’s true because I read it on the Internet…"

Keep repeating this until the guilt goes away:

"The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…I killed a bab…NO! NO! NO! The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…"

Anne
August 9th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Great post, Husband&Father.

I guess the end result of their continual denial is "They are coming to take me away, hee, hee ..."

Lighthouse
August 9th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Why?
Actually, I don't even think the heart has to have started beating to be considered a person. But I know what the dictionary says, as well.

human
1. of, belonging to, or typical of mankind.
2. consisting of or produced by men [mankind].

person
1. a human being, esp. as distinguished from a thing or lower animal; individual man, woman or child.
3. a) a living human body. b) bodily form or appearance.


I am asuming you are talking about "legal rights". Unborn fetuses do not have these rights. In fact a person doesn't even have full rights until the 18th year. Legally, (maybe not ethically) a mother can kill her child late into her pregnancy.
Not "legal rights," because even what we consider basic human rights in America are not applied legally to many people in some countries. So legal has nothing to do with it. And the government is obviously not applying the right to life to the unborn. And that right to life is a basic human right. So the law is depriving the unborn of that right by allowing women to have abortions.



I agree, those who are born and are sentient have these rights.
And those who are unborn should have those rights as well.


P.S.
Learn to spell sentience.

Lighthouse
August 9th, 2004, 11:22 PM
IMO, smothers and Skeptic are not persons. Bcause they have no brain to have activity and no heart to beat.

Balder
August 9th, 2004, 11:48 PM
As I said, I do not support abortion, but I do not understand the violent opposition to the untimely killing of innocent babies by those who also believe that the loving Father of humanity also killed innocent babies (to punish adults, in Egypt), or ordered his people to cut down babies and infants with swords.

Lighthouse
August 10th, 2004, 01:28 AM
Balder-
It all boils down to different time, different place and different circumstances. The Egyptians had enslaved His people and were beating them, daily...and killing them. Pharoah even ordered the death of every male born to the Israelites, from that point on. And vengeance is God's. So, He took vengeance. I am opposed to humans taking innocent human life. Especially when it is not about punishing anyone.

avatar382
August 10th, 2004, 09:39 AM
Husband&Father, Good post, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. Allow me to respond to a few of your points:


The link between "personhood" and brain activity is an arbitrary one made up for the convenience of the pro choice advocate.

At best it is mearly a personal definition without the support of the medical establishment (who do not try to establish personhood in the metaphysical sense) and in defiance of common sense.

It's not quite just brain activity that establishes personhood, it's sentience, being self-aware, having interests. A living creature lacking sentience is a vegetable.

Legally, a person is declared dead at brain death. I think this supports the notion that being self-aware is crucial to being a person.


Further, the premise that fetus’ do not have brain activity until 20 weeks is completely false. The brain is still developing to be sure and will continue to grow in capacity as the pregnancy works to term but the movements (yawning, thumb sucking, stretching etc.) that pre 20 weak babies routinely demonstrate (as well as their reaction to noises) are much to complex to be mere reflexes or automatic. Nope, the brain is quite active.

This could very well be true. I will not oppose the statement that a fetus could be sentient at 20 weeks.

However, saying that there is sentience at conception, at the zygote stage where the unborn is merely a collection of stem cells, is indefensible. Thus logically, there is a line between conception and 20 weeks where the unborn transitions from non-sentience to sentience.


The brain activity argument is bogus. If brain activity determines personhood than does diminished brain activity (brain damaged accident victims) diminish personhood. Is a mental illiness victim who had a frontal lobotomy only half a person?

Again, it's not just brain activity that is the issue, it's having self-awareness, having interests. A lobotomy patient may still be self aware, and was once self aware. Likewise, such a person may still have interests, and once had interests.

This is distinctly different than a zygote at a week that is not capable of and never had, to that point, self-awareness and/or interests.


If the brain activity has to be a certain type and quality of brain activity then we have to admit that some 5 year olds (retarded, comotosed) are not people. The whole stupid theory falls apart.

If the 5 year olds in question
1.) are not physically capable of self-awareness and have no interests in themselves or anything else
2.) never had self-awareness/interests, and never will (because they are incapable).
then I would say that yes, they are not people, they are human vegetables.


Abortion advocates know right from wrong, that’s why they must always qualify their support for abortion. They can’t just say "I’m for abortion period" they have to say "I’m for abortion…er…up until 20 weeks…because…you see…a baby does not have brain activity…well not much brain activity until 20 weeks…so I’m for abortion up to 20 weeks…but I will not condemn those who are for abortion after 20 weeks…because even though I…personally…believe that the baby is a person after 20 weeks others may not and who am I to say when a person…er…fetus…is a person…even though I decided that it’s at 20 weeks…and I know it’s true because I read it on the Internet…"

I argue that the position to allow abortion up to a point in pregancy (when the fetus becomes sentient) is a reasonable compromise between the rights of a sentient fetus and the rights of a mother carrying a very early non-sentient zygote which is naturally aborted in a sense a majority of the time, anyway.

Now I have a question for you (or anyone else that wishes to respond)
Is it your position that everything that is human in nature and alive is a person and should be given full rights as such? The reason I ask is because internal organs, human cells, etc are alive, and human in nature, yet are clearly not people.

Crow
August 10th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by smothers

Why do you think humanity is a better basis than personhood?

Because personhood can and historically has been assigned arbitrarily. Slavery is one example.

smothers
August 10th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Great post! You stated your position succintly. Another poster did an excellant job rebutted the subtantive arguments you made. My response would only be repeating what he said.

I would like to address a theme running through the TOL. Those who appear to hold a religious bent are in the habit of resorting to personal attacks. These attacks are entertaining, but their subtance doesn't add to the credulity of their arguments.



Smothers and others can’t stand the guilt so they discredit prolifers because they are "religious" (as if that is an automatic disqualification).


Not so. I don't care what you believe, I just care what you do. One's religiosity is irrelevant to the argument.



If a photo gives them pause, if they see the picture and find themselves admitting that the fetus is a baby, they accuse the photographer of "doctoring" (what a choice of words) the photo. The alternative to calling the photos doctored is calling themselves killers.


This is a classic ad homenom attack. You are attacking my motives in an attempt to discredit my position. The following facts...

I have two children
I have never fathered a child that was later aborted. (My sexual history is limited to my marriage.)
I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion.
I mourned at the death of my first child who miscarraiged at 18 weeks.

... are irrelevant to the discussion. My argument, regardless of my motives are either correct or incorrect. Painting me as someone who thinks the photos were doctored to assuage my guilt is just plain silly. It even suggests that your position may be so weak that you want to attack the messenger.




Abortion advocates know right from wrong, that’s why they must always qualify their support for abortion. They can’t just say "I’m for abortion period"


I know right from wrong as well. Besides our disagreement on THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, can you cite another example where I do not know right from wrong?

My position is: I am for abortion until the beginning of the 13th week.



Keep repeating this until the guilt goes away:

"The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…I killed a bab…NO! NO! NO! The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…"

[/Quote]

Isn't it rather presumptive to suggest the only reason people don't like those photos is guilt from abortion? In reality you don't really know. You may be guessing this to reconcile the paradox between your disgust at this act and the fact there are people who disagree with you. But then, I don't know this either. In fact it is totally irrelevant to the discussion, isn't it?

Take care.

Mark

Anne
August 10th, 2004, 11:51 PM
Hi Mark

Losing a child is really tough. Whether the child lost is born or not yet born the pain is the same, i.e. your child ( a person) has died.

Definitely by 18 weeks a child is self aware, sucking his thumb, maybe even his toes. They can be as active as possible within the limited space available to them.

A friend of mine, who is a doctor, was present when a patient miscarried at 8 weeks. He preserved the baby in a small bottle. I have seen the baby and when you look at the baby you know you are looking at a little person who has died. You can already see that it's a boy.

When we look at these little babes and are sad that they have died, how can it possibly be OK to kill such innocent defenseless children. I find that difficult to understand. Often a mother who has just miscarried her baby asks her doctors in despair "why did this happen, what went wrong", the doctor will reply that he doesn''t know. So if they don't know everything surely the ethical way is "First do no harm". No one (especially babies) would be harmed if the entire medical profession said "From conception this new person has the right to life (and no one has the right to kill him/her).

Almighty God said" Thou shalt not kill.
I don't know about your Bible but mine doesn't say in brackets (those who are self aware).

:doh: Often those who are blind drunk are not self aware. Does that mean it is OK to kill them:confused:

The person/self aware argument is totally ridiculous and should be abandoned. No support for it can be found in God's Word. As mentioned before it only furthers the agenda of those who have evil intentions: slave owners, Nazis and profiteering abortionists.:aikido:

smothers
August 11th, 2004, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Crow

Because personhood can and historically has been assigned arbitrarily. Slavery is one example.


Crow that is a good point. One should not base personhood on something abbitary. I am basing my personhood assignment on something biological and measurable.

Slavery is morally repugnant. One reason I do not use the Bible as a basis for asigning personhood are found in the following verses.

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)


A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Versus such as these show how the Bible views some people as superior to others.

The following versus seem to support abortion. Accidental abortion was not worthy of murder. The child was the man's property and therefore subject to compensation.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

Mark

smothers
August 11th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Anne

A friend of mine, who is a doctor, was present when a patient miscarried at 8 weeks. He preserved the baby in a small bottle. I have seen the baby and when you look at the baby you know you are looking at a little person who has died. You can already see that it's a boy.



Weren't you apalled that a doctor did not bury the child? It seems shocking that someone would take a baby and display it in a small bottle. If the baby is a person, shouldn't it be buried? Most women miscarriage at least once. If the fetus is a person, should it not be burried?

Aimiel
August 11th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by smothers

Weren't you apalled that a doctor did not bury the child? It seems shocking that someone would take a baby and display it in a small bottle. If the baby is a person, shouldn't it be buried? Most women miscarriage at least once. If the fetus is a person, should it not be burried? Yes, it is shocking that someone might put a human being's body on display in a bottle; but not nearly as shocking as someone wanting to put that human being to death, for the sake of convenience. Yes, babies should be buried. My grandmother had a baby that was still-born, and they had no funeral. I don't believe that there would be any good come of it. She later needed comfort, at the funeral that she had for the fifteen month old infant that she lost. That death hit her more than any other, because, as she said, she just fell in love with the baby, and it died. Is a funeral done to benefit the deceased or the living? We don't 'hang around' like Hollywood portrays in the movies, because to be absent from the body is to be present with The Lord. The deceased baby whose body is on display would be proud if there were only one person who, upon seeing the body, repented of committing their abortion.

philosophizer
August 11th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by smothers

Weren't you apalled that a doctor did not bury the child? It seems shocking that someone would take a baby and display it in a small bottle. If the baby is a person, shouldn't it be buried? Most women miscarriage at least once. If the fetus is a person, should it not be burried?


Why? Is there something "special" about being burried? Do you think the fetus's soul will become a ghost haunting the doctor's office or something? Are people who are cremated or set in tombs any less dead? Or any less people?


Let's take an imagination trip. Let's suppose for a moment that abortion is the murder of a young human person. Let's assume that young human person has a soul. Let's assume that the soul enters heaven and is as aware of itself and of the truth of reality as much as any soul we might imagine in heaven is. Now imagine that you are that soul. Wouldn't you be pleased if your former earthly body could do any good toward persuading others against the method of murder that abortion is?

It makes as much sense as a person willing to donate his or her body to medical research after death in hopes of curing some terrible disease.

smothers
August 11th, 2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Why? Is there something "special" about being burried? Do you think the fetus's soul will become a ghost haunting the doctor's office or something? Are people who are cremated or set in tombs any less dead? Or any less people?



You have missed the point. Like the sickening abortion photos, the display of human body parts is disgusting.



Let's take an imagination trip. Let's suppose for a moment that abortion is the murder of a young human person. Let's assume that young human person has a soul. Let's assume that the soul enters heaven and is as aware of itself and of the truth of reality as much as any soul we might imagine in heaven is. Now imagine that you are that soul. Wouldn't you be pleased if your former earthly body could do any good toward persuading others against the method of murder that abortion is?

It makes as much sense as a person willing to donate his or her body to medical research after death in hopes of curing some terrible disease.

I don't play "just imagine". I would rather deal with reality. This scenario is absurd and as likely as a literal Mother Goose.

Anne
August 11th, 2004, 04:58 PM
The reality is that abortion is the brutal murder of innocent, defenseless babies. God commanded us not to murder. Therefore it is simple, abortion is NEVER OK.:nono:

Crow
August 11th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Crow that is a good point. One should not base personhood on something abbitary. I am basing my personhood assignment on something biological and measurable.

Slavery is morally repugnant. One reason I do not use the Bible as a basis for asigning personhood are found in the following verses.

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)


A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Versus such as these show how the Bible views some people as superior to others.

The following versus seem to support abortion. Accidental abortion was not worthy of murder. The child was the man's property and therefore subject to compensation.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

Mark

Smothers, you utilize an arbitrary requirement, "personhood," to award the right to life, the most basic of human rights. The cut off you choose is 13 weeks of gestation.

As technology has advanced, brain waves are detectable at about 9 weeks now. It is difficult because the mother's body generates a great amount of background current and noise, but it has been done. There is brain activity in the first trimester.

I don't believe that any such qualification is necessary to recognize the right to life of the fetus, but I throw this in as an example of how one's "measurable" biological data is not necessarily absolutely correct as our ability to detect and understand natural phenomena has rendered a lot of "facts" fiction, and does so regularly.

On to the Biblical issue--

While the Bible recognized that some persons were slaves, do you see anywhere that it is OK to murder your slave if you don't want him? I don't.

The "abortion" you refer to in the Bible is miscarriage as a result of altercation between adults, an accidental death. Accidental death is not treated as murder in the Bible. From Genesis 21--note the two different penalties for murder and accidental death:

12 Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Another example of how the scriptures distinguish between types of deaths, in this case accidental vs death due to reckless endangerment. Also from Genesis 21-

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. Accidental death


29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. Reckless endangerment

30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. Payment as penalty for causing death by reckless endangerment, as opposed to intentional murder--the owner must pay whatever is demanded of him, the same as when a person causes a woman to miscarry.

Art Deco
August 11th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by smothers

You have missed the point. Like the sickening abortion photos, the display of human body parts is disgusting.


Why do you find the human baby body parts, the product of abortion, to be disgusting? You can not escape the reality that abortion is murder in a most gruesome manner. You would rather believe a lie than acknowledge the truth. Anyone who supports and defends abortion is no better than a Nazi SS storm trooper. No honor, no class, no conscience, no humanity...soulless. A good Democrat.

Lighthouse
August 11th, 2004, 07:35 PM
It doesn't even matter that God said not to murder. Murder is wrong, no matter what. God knew that, which is why He said not to. It didn't become wrong because He said not to. He said not to, because it was wrong. And abortion is murder.

aikido7
August 11th, 2004, 10:27 PM
The photographs are graphic. Some call them disgusting and feel emboldened enough to outlaw all abortions, no matter what.

If it is a war on human life here, the ones who are doing the abortions and consenting to them have good intentions. Just like the bombing of civillians--it is a regrettable consequence of a higher good.

Anne
August 11th, 2004, 10:48 PM
The primary intention of the abortionist is to make as much money as he can. They are greedy murderers who seem to have no conscience.

The mothers who allow their child/ren to be murdered are either ignorant or callous.

It is ridiculous to say the abortionists and those mothers have good intentions. That is absolute drivel.:kookoo:

Please enlighten us as to what you mean by "higher good".:doh:

aikido7
August 11th, 2004, 10:59 PM
The photographs are graphic. Some call them disgusting and feel emboldened enough to outlaw all abortions, no matter what.

If it is a war on human life here, the ones who are doing the abortions and consenting to them have good intentions. Just like the bombing of civillians--it is a regrettable consequence of a higher good.


I am placing this warning here not to sensationalize this thread

Big red letters and coarse photography. Hmmm....


I would not want young kids to be looking over my shoulder when these images load. Many people are unable to stand looking at graphic pictures of dead babies.

And why not? Unrealistic censorship of true reality masquerading as "protecting children" is not defensible. Our children have to learn the truth, and good parents will have the love, maturity and imagination to teach their children about what really goes on in the world. Only by telling children the truth without the intent to upset and shock will the world be changed and the power of pornographic images--sexual or violent--will vanish and shrink


It was made evident in another thread that some people still do not realize the extent to which our society condones the murder of children.

Only the self-deluded cannot imagine their country or government is involved in henious and tragic crimes. It is about time we all realized that and used some imagination, morality and honor to come up with alternatives. The authority given to doctors, presidents and governments is giving aid and comfort to psychopaths.


There is a misconception that lumps of unrecognizable human tissue are being aborted.

Let us be truthful. "Lumps of unrecognizable human tissue" ARE being "aborted." When you say that:


This thread is going to show exactly what goes into the incinerators and medical waste containers

The thread is not going to show exactly ALL that goes into the trash. If it did, the thread would be not near as sensational. From a rabid critic of abortion, photographs of lumps of tissue are just way too boring.


so if you have a weak stomach or cannot bear to look at the images of dead children, please procede no furthur in this thread. If you wish to add photographs, please do so. Sometimes it is necessary to see the fruits of evil to understand the wickedness of those who promote the murder of babies. Look at these pictures yourself and decide if these are lumps of tissue.

It would be nice if we could only publish the pictures of terror and death to make the madness stop. It is pretty to think so. Maybe we should be posting pictures from Iraq that our "liberal news media" chooses to hide from us--the kind that Al-Jazeera likes to broadcast.

It has not worked in war--where cruelty and killing is often the conscious intent AND the result--and it will not work in abortion, as long as women and doctors make decisions out of an awareness of doing good in the world.

Crow, your inflamatory words would lead one to think that these doctors and these women are involved in something patently evil. Or that somehow taking one's medical oath seriously and at the same time making a good living from one's calling is impossible. Or feeling backed into a corner and unsupported by culture and society is being ignorant and callous.

Calling doctors and women murderers that have no conscience shows an ignorance of the human condition. Blanket condemnation is too simplistic.

I wish it WAS simplistic--because abortion is a distasteful and difficult matter. And because of that fact, the issue will never be "solved." It will never go away. The profound questions and themes it stirs up in us partly come from what it means to be a human being.

Crow, sorry to be so blunt, but abortion has always been as perennial as the grass and is as common as the air that humans breathe.

Daniel50
August 11th, 2004, 11:19 PM
ABORTION
Somehow most “discussions? about abortion tend to quickly degenerate into slogans and/or screaming matches between “pro-life? and “pro-choice.? But the issue is not actually so easily delineated.
Lots of people who personally oppose abortion might also concede that women (and men) should have the right to make their own moral and physical choices. After all, this is America where we take our freedom rather seriously. And indeed, statistics reflect that a majority of people in the United States have “serious reservations? about abortion, yet a majority are also in favor of ensuring it remains a legal right for women.
It would also be a gross overstatement to claim that everyone who favors abortion under certain circumstances should carry the implicated label of “anti-life.? It is not unheard of for those who work with very young girls who are scared and pregnant—perhaps bearing the child of a rapist or family member—to soften a prior intense opposition to abortion. After looking into thousands of these young girls’ faces, it can be difficult to take an absolute stand against abortion, even while clinging to a personal commitment to the sanctity of life. In contrast, it’s rather easy to maintain a hard-line stand if we never take a close look at the harsh realities of the problem.
Several crucial factors come into play whenever the topic of abortion is raised. One is the often-debated issue of exactly when life begins. Many Christians have a firm conviction that life begins at conception. They are fond of quoting biblical passages that reflect God’s future plans for as-yet-unborn people. Here are a few of the passages frequently used:

• “You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. . . . You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb? (Psalm 139:13, 15).
• “The Lord gave me a message. He said, ‘I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world’ ? (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
• “In a loud voice [Elizabeth] exclaimed [to Mary]: ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! . . . As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy’ ? (Luke 1:42, 44, NIV).

In addition to these passages are a number of prophecies that a woman would conceive a child who would be special. Such assurances were made to Sarah (Genesis 18:9-14), Samson’s mother (Judges 13:3-5), Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26-3 , and others. Those who believe Scripture often come to the conclusion that each and every child to be born has a God-foreseen future and fits snugly into God’s overall plan for humanity. Abortion, therefore, is not merely the removal of a not-yet-viable embryo, but rather the loss of a very real person as well as all that that unique child of God might have done in his or her lifetime.
Advocates for abortion don’t agree that life begins at conception. It then becomes a matter of determining exactly when the fetus transforms from a growing cluster of cells into a state advanced enough to be considered a person.
The abortion issue was taken to the Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case of 1973. The court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, a state cannot regulate abortions at all as long as a licensed doctor oversees the procedure. During the second trimester, the state was allowed to refuse an abortion if the woman’s health was at risk. And during the third trimester, the state could refuse all abortions except for those needed in order to save the life of the mother. These determinations were made on the basis that the fetus usually becomes “viable? (capable of living outside the uterus) at about 28 weeks, but sometimes as early as 24 weeks.
The Roe vs. Wade decision initiated an increase in abortions, as well as in numerous state attempts to restrict abortions and subsequent hearings in the Supreme Court. Now 30 years later, anti- abortion advocates are still attempting to have the Roe vs. Wade decision overturned. Abortion is widespread, yet only about a third of the population desires stricter abortion laws, with 64 percent satisfied with current laws or willing to have less strict regulations.
And as should be expected, each side challenges the other in regard to its stand on the topic. Some of those who say life begins at conception and are strongly pro-life are willing to undergo in vitro fertilization in order to have children of their own. The process, however, involves fertilizing a number of eggs, some of which are eventually destroyed or used for experimentation. If life indeed begins at the initial fertilization, the disposal of single-celled eggs can be equated (by opponents) with abortion at other early stages before the fetus is fully developed.
Abortion advocates are coming under fire for callous disregard for human life when an abortion attempt results in a live birth. A nurse at a Chicago hospital recently reported how babies who were supposed to be aborted but lived were simply wrapped in a blanket and left to die. Sometimes they live for hours before dying from lack of attention. This accepted method of “treatment? seems barbaric to many who oppose abortion. Even if life doesn’t begin at conception, it certainly should begin when a baby comes out of the womb and starts breathing on its own.
The still-being-debated issue is how to determine the rights of everyone involved. No one wants to deny the rights of a pregnant woman. But abortion opponents want to consider the rights of the unborn as well. Pregnant women can speak for themselves. In addition, they frequently have powerful political lobbies behind them. Pro-life activists want to provide corresponding rights for the unborn.
And to add to the controversy is the recent approval of the “abortion pill,? also known as RU-486 or mifepristone. This pill can be prescribed to terminate “early pregnancy? (up to 49 days after the beginning of the woman’s last menstrual period). It’s too soon to determine what effect this will have on abortion numbers in the United States. Some people expect a massive increase. However, the numbers following European release of the drug, while reflecting a bit of a rise, did not skyrocket as feared.
The emotions involved in both the pro-choice and pro-life camps are so strong that the issue is never likely to be resolved to everyone’s mutual satisfaction. In most cases, Christians will oppose abortion. Yet in the zeal to promote what Christians believe, we need to be aware that the problem of abortion may have hit close to home for many people within earshot. And perhaps we should remind ourselves that we also believe in love, forgiveness, and compassion.
www.illumina.com

Crow
August 12th, 2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

The photographs are graphic. Some call them disgusting and feel emboldened enough to outlaw all abortions, no matter what.

If it is a war on human life here, the ones who are doing the abortions and consenting to them have good intentions. Just like the bombing of civillians--it is a regrettable consequence of a higher good.



Big red letters and coarse photography. Hmmm....
Those images are offensive, and they are authentic. And the big red letters are because 1Peacemaker saw a photo someone posted in another thread, and I really don't wish to experience another nitwit whining ad nauseum because they are offended. Not that I don't mind offending people for a good cause.




And why not? Unrealistic censorship of true reality masquerading as "protecting children" is not defensible. Our children have to learn the truth, and good parents will have the love, maturity and imagination to teach their children about what really goes on in the world. Only by telling children the truth without the intent to upset and shock will the world be changed and the power of pornographic images--sexual or violent--will vanish and shrink

Some kids aren't ready to see this stuff, and other parents don't wish to them to see it. It's their parents choice, not yours.



Only the self-deluded cannot imagine their country or government is involved in henious and tragic crimes. It is about time we all realized that and used some imagination, morality and honor to come up with alternatives. The authority given to doctors, presidents and governments is giving aid and comfort to psychopaths

This is the abortion discussion.



Let us be truthful. "Lumps of unrecognizable human tissue" ARE being "aborted." When you say that:

I'll bet that most people recognized what they saw.


The thread is not going to show exactly ALL that goes into the trash. If it did, the thread would be not near as sensational. From a rabid critic of abortion, photographs of lumps of tissue are just way too boring.

This is a fetus (below) at 9 weeks gestation. Unless you're Stevie Wonder, you ought to be able to recognize that this is not just a lump of tissue. Unless, of course, you are referring to after it is pulverized.




It would be nice if we could only publish the pictures of terror and death to make the madness stop. It is pretty to think so. Maybe we should be posting pictures from Iraq that our "liberal news media" chooses to hide from us--the kind that Al-Jazeera likes to broadcast.

This is the abortion thread.


It has not worked in war--where cruelty and killing is often the conscious intent AND the result--and it will not work in abortion, as long as women and doctors make decisions out of an awareness of doing good in the world

It has worked on individual people. I'm one of them. cattyfan is another.



Crow, your inflamatory words would lead one to think that these doctors and these women are involved in something patently evil.

They are.


Or that somehow taking one's medical oath seriously and at the same time making a good living from one's calling is impossible.

Plenty of doctors manage to do so without killing babies.


Or feeling backed into a corner and unsupported by culture and society is being ignorant and callous.

Nothing wrong with feeling however one wants too. It's killing that is ignorant and callous.


Calling doctors and women murderers that have no conscience shows an ignorance of the human condition. Blanket condemnation is too simplistic.

Killing unborn babies is wrong. Some things are that simple.


I wish it WAS simplistic--because abortion is a distasteful and difficult matter. And because of that fact, the issue will never be "solved." It will never go away. The profound questions and themes it stirs up in us partly come from what it means to be a human being. Crow, sorry to be so blunt, but abortion has always been as perennial as the grass and is as common as the air that humans breathe.[/i]

Abortion has existed. Murder has existed. Rape has existed. And prior existance is no reason not to deal with preventing any of the three to the best of our ability.

aikido7
August 12th, 2004, 01:01 AM
Sure, this is an abortion thread. But seeing the same pattern which informs ALL murder is instructive, provided one does not hobble one's imagination. Those who are opposed to abortion and those who justify abortion will mislead themselves into a circular argument if they wilfully ignore abortion's connections as well as its consequences.

You should not limit my thinking or writing on this topic by invoking unamed rules about HOW the topic should be explored.
That is unfair and insulting. If you use your imagination and broaden your outlook on the topic, I am sure you will see the relevance of comparing the killing of human life to both abortion and war.

Many women abort--with or without medical help. They also miscarry--an act of God or the Devil. And sometimes it is just tissue and blood, but tissue and blood are not very graphic or sensational. It is just as ignorant ("ignore") to say that all aborted fetuses resemble babies.

Yes, plenty of doctors do not do abortions. Most doctors do not. Most doctors do not do appendectomies. Remember, we are talking about "abortion doctors." Right? Abortion is a ghastly medical specialization. And it is very real.

I respect your stance and cattyfan's as well. I have stood up against killing and faced a seven-year prison term with a three-year stint in a military hospital when I was released. But I was also aware that young people were being drafted by the hundreds even though I took my stand.

When the circumstances that cause war and abortion are addressed, then they will become joyless memories. Addressing the causes of both will take more courage than burning a draftboard or lying down in front of a clinic.

Killing is wrong. Simple to say and believe? Sure. Unfortunately, the human condition is not simple. You know that and I know that. Thus, the abortion "problem," "dilemma" or "question."


Abortion has existed. Murder has existed. Rape has existed. And prior existance is no reason not to deal with preventing any of the three to the best of our ability.

No argument. I just wanted to point out that the occurrence and the prevention of tragedy are part of the dynamic of human history.

Art Deco
August 12th, 2004, 06:51 AM
Note: If you're pregnant you're going to have a baby. Only an abortionist's intervention could stop the inevitable from happening.

Daniel50
August 12th, 2004, 10:35 AM
MTP.
Manually Terminating Pregnancy.

Some people practice.

smothers
August 12th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Crow

As technology has advanced, brain waves are detectable at about 9 weeks now. It is difficult because the mother's body generates a great amount of background current and noise, but it has been done. There is brain activity in the first trimester.



Untrue Christian myth. The "measurements" of brain waves are merely the synapses starting to connect. The brain's cerebral cortext and central nervous system is not mature enough to generate brain waves.



I don't believe that any such qualification is necessary to recognize the right to life of the fetus, but I throw this in as an example of how one's "measurable" biological data is not necessarily absolutely correct as our ability to detect and understand natural phenomena has rendered a lot of "facts" fiction, and does so regularly.


What criteria do you use to qualify the right to life of a two week fetus?



On to the Biblical issue--

While the Bible recognized that some persons were slaves, do you see anywhere that it is OK to murder your slave if you don't want him? I don't.



I brought up slavery because you inferred slavery was wrong. You also have used the Bible as a proof-text to support your position. If the bible promotes something that is wrong, why would you use it to support your abortion position?




The "abortion" you refer to in the Bible is miscarriage as a result of altercation between adults, an accidental death. Accidental death is not treated as murder in the Bible...

My point in this case was the status given to the baby. In the biblical text I quoted, the baby was given the status of "property" rather than individual.

But I digress, regardless of what the Bible says about the subject, I do not use it as a basis for morality. As we both do not view the Bible with the same reverance, we should not use it as a basis for the argument at hand.

smothers
August 12th, 2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Why do you find the human baby body parts, the product of abortion, to be disgusting? You can not escape the reality that abortion is murder in a most gruesome manner.


We find the pictures disgusting for different reasons. I would view a picture of a cute kitten run over by a tractor trailer then placed in a meat grinder with equal disgust. It is tactless, crude and unnecessarily vile.



You would rather believe a lie than acknowledge the truth. Anyone who supports and defends abortion is no better than a Nazi SS storm trooper. No honor, no class, no conscience, no humanity...soulless. A good Democrat.

blah. blah. blah. Call me names because you disagree with me. Paint me with a broad brush because we disagree on this one issue. I've been called some pretty nasty names, but the nastiest of all is "DEMOCRAT!"

smothers
August 12th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

The photographs are graphic. Some call them disgusting and feel emboldened enough to outlaw all abortions, no matter what.

If it is a war on human life here, the ones who are doing the abortions and consenting to them have good intentions. Just like the bombing of civillians--it is a regrettable consequence of a higher good.

The ends justifies the means?

The SAME argument is used to murder an abortion doctor or bomb an abortion clinic.

On Fire
August 12th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by smothers
As we both do not view the Bible with the same reverance, we should not use it as a basis for the argument at hand.

At what age do you consider killing a fetus wrong?

smothers
August 12th, 2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Note: If you're pregnant you're going to have a baby. Only an abortionist's intervention could stop the inevitable from happening.


80% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.

smothers
August 12th, 2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

At what age do you consider killing a fetus wrong?


18 weeks

Art Deco
August 12th, 2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by smothers

80% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. This is meaningless smoke and mirrors when we are talking about aborting live and some times full term babies. But, what would you expect from a pro-abort. :doh:

Art Deco
August 12th, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by smothers

We find the pictures disgusting for different reasons. I would view a picture of a cute kitten run over by a tractor trailer then placed in a meat grinder with equal disgust. It is tactless, crude and unnecessarily vile. It's the essence of abortion. Tactless, crude, unecessarily vile, ...cruel, heartless, and without pity.

Husband&Father
August 12th, 2004, 09:04 PM
A conversation between a pregnant girl and Smothers:

Girl: "I’m thinking of having an abortion"

Smothers: "How far along are you"

Girl: "Lets see…today is Saturday…Monday will be 13 weeks"

Smothers:
"Well if your going to have an abortion have it today, the clinic is closed Sunday and on Monday your fetus will be a baby"

Girl: "It’s not a baby today?"

Smothers:
"Nope"

Girl: "Monday it will be a baby?"

Smothers:
"Yep"

Girl: "Who says?"

Smothers:
"I say"

Girl: "Two days makes a difference?"

Smothers:
"That’s my position. 13 weeks. Before 13 weeks OK. After thirteen weeks not OK"


Girl: "How did you come up with that position?"

Smothers:
"I thought about it, I looked into it, I prayed about it, I pondered it then I picked 13 weeks."

Girl: "Well I’ve thought about it… I think I will have the abortion but I have a thing on Monday so I’m going to make my position 14 weeks. I’m going to pick 14 weeks that way I can have the abortion and it will still be a fetus not a baby"

Smothers:
"Baby Killer"

Husband&Father
August 12th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Smothers wrote:
[Those who appear to hold a religious bent are in the habit of resorting to personal attacks.]

1. This is a broad generalization. A classic passive aggressive attack of the same nature as the attacks you admonish. First you attempt to marginilize by way of a patronizing put-down ie: "those who hold a religious bent" then you attempt to demonize i.e.: "are in the habit of resorting to personal attacks". Talking about "those who hold…" rather than talking about me is a lame attempt to avoid a "personal" attack while attacking me. You might get away with it while critiquing other posters but I’m going to call it what it is. Namely: smarmy, elitist babble.
2. Honestly, It’s not personal. I truly do not know you or any one else on this board "personally" and as such I lack the ability to make personal attacks. I’m just making spot comments to posts not to people. It’s not personal it’s the Internet.

Smothers wrote:
[My position is: I am for abortion until the beginning of the 13th week.]

This position is arbitrary. It can not be defended with intellectual honesty against a person who would condemn you because they picked 12.5 weeks nor can it be supported with logical consistency to a person you would condemn who picked 13.5 weeks. Your position is just that; YOUR position. You are fallible, you might be wrong. And if your wrong on this question your really wrong because we are talking about life or death here.

Daniel50
August 12th, 2004, 10:10 PM
Is this verse related to Abortion?
Isaiah 66:9
Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

Abortion is Curse.

Art Deco
August 13th, 2004, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Husband&Father

A conversation between a pregnant girl and Smothers:

Girl: "I’m thinking of having an abortion"

Smothers: "How far along are you"

Girl: "Lets see…today is Saturday…Monday will be 13 weeks"

Smothers:
"Well if your going to have an abortion have it today, the clinic is closed Sunday and on Monday your fetus will be a baby"

Girl: "It’s not a baby today?"

Smothers:
"Nope"

Girl: "Monday it will be a baby?"

Smothers:
"Yep"

Girl: "Who says?"

Smothers:
"I say"

Girl: "Two days makes a difference?"

Smothers:
"That’s my position. 13 weeks. Before 13 weeks OK. After thirteen weeks not OK"


Girl: "How did you come up with that position?"

Smothers:
"I thought about it, I looked into it, I prayed about it, I pondered it then I picked 13 weeks."

Girl: "Well I’ve thought about it… I think I will have the abortion but I have a thing on Monday so I’m going to make my position 14 weeks. I’m going to pick 14 weeks that way I can have the abortion and it will still be a fetus not a baby"

Smothers:
"Baby Killer"

Excellent post. :first:

avatar382
August 13th, 2004, 03:30 PM
We have arbitrary lines drawn all over society. Why is it that 18 year olds can vote, but someone who is 17 years and a month cannot?

I think the point of smothers arbitrary line is that it is ultra conservative and no sentient being can be killed if the line is drawn at that point. Of course, some fetuses may not develop sentience until after that point, but again, there are 17 year olds that are more "adult-like" than some 21 year olds, but the 21 year old is the "adult".

Anne
August 13th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Nonsense, Smother's arbitrary line is NOT ultra conservative. Sentience is NOT the issue, it is still murder.

Sigh, you pro-aborts just don't get it.:doh: Why do you desperately try rationalize the killing of unborn children.:nono:

avatar382
August 14th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Anne

Nonsense, Smother's arbitrary line is NOT ultra conservative. Sentience is NOT the issue, it is still murder.

Sigh, you pro-aborts just don't get it.:doh: Why do you desperately try rationalize the killing of unborn children.:nono:

Sentinence is the issue, because the whole point is that if the fetus is not capable of sentience, it's not a person and thus killing it is not murder.

I think this is where there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion... you believe being alive and human in origin is sufficent for human rights, I believe sentience is also a requirement. ..

EDIT:

Why do you desperately try rationalize the killing of unborn children.

Honestly I'm not desprate to rationalize anything. I enjoy these discussions as philosophical excercises... What makes people people? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?very interesting stuff. :think:

Husband&Father
August 14th, 2004, 01:50 PM
avatar382 wrote:
[Sentinence is the issue, because the whole point is that if the fetus is not capable of sentience, it's not a person and thus killing it is not murder.]

I understand that this is YOUR belief, YOUR position, but as-such it is not worth a tinkers cuss. Your position is of no more value than mine and make no mistake one of us is wrong! This situation begs for an ultimate arbiter, a final authority.

You have to admit that it is at least 50% possible that you are wrong and God bestowed personhood on people whether they are "self aware" of not. I say when in doubt err on the side of life because the consequences of being wrong are the death of innocents.

Lighthouse
August 14th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Maybe someone should cut the heads off of pro-choicers, and see if they like it. If you want to argue sentience, are you actually dumb enough to believe that feeling pain doesn't constitute sentience? The unborn child feels as much pain as you would, if your body was being sucked through a vaccuum and sliced to pieces.

smothers
August 15th, 2004, 07:59 PM
a fetus can not feel pain until about the 20th week. ...


But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

smothers
August 15th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Husband&Father

You have to admit that it is at least 50% possible that you are wrong and God bestowed personhood on people whether they are "self aware" of not. I say when in doubt err on the side of life because the consequences of being wrong are the death of innocents.


Until God has a press conference on the subject, why don't you keep her out of it?:

Lighthouse
August 16th, 2004, 12:18 AM
God owes you nothing smothers. He didn't have to do anything for you, and He still doesn't. And for you to assume that He does is presumptious. You are selfish, and greedy. Get over yourself. You gain yourself no satisfaction when you want what isn't yours.

Crow
August 16th, 2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by avatar382

Sentinence is the issue, because the whole point is that if the fetus is not capable of sentience, it's not a person and thus killing it is not murder.


Do you think that if I walked into a coma ward and randomly started killing the comatose, I would be committing murder? After all, they aren't sentinent.

avatar382
August 16th, 2004, 05:49 PM
This situation begs for an ultimate arbiter, a final authority.

Perhaps, but what if we aren't afforded the convienence of a final authority?

avatar382
August 16th, 2004, 05:51 PM
Maybe someone should cut the heads off of pro-choicers, and see if they like it. If you want to argue sentience, are you actually dumb enough to believe that feeling pain doesn't constitute sentience? The unborn child feels as much pain as you would, if your body was being sucked through a vaccuum and sliced to pieces.

Feeling pain DOES constitute sentience. No one here is saying otherwise. The whole POINT is that since a zygote at conception IS NOT CAPABLE of feeling pain (among other things) and thus killing it is not murder.

Read the thread. :doh:

avatar382
August 16th, 2004, 06:03 PM
Do you think that if I walked into a coma ward and randomly started killing the comatose, I would be committing murder? After all, they aren't sentinent.

Excellent point.

The comatose have something that an embryo does not - Prior sentience and an interest in regaining awareness before the onset of the comatose state. Every person who goes to sleep does so with the expectation and interest of waking up the next morning. The zygote at conception has no such thing since it never was sentient to begin with.

The difference between the two is that one has temporarily lost sentience and can regain it, where as the other never had it and is not capable of it (yet).

To answer your question directly:

Yes, generally, killing the comatose (defined as someone who was previously sentient, but is no longer) is murder, unless it can be shown that the one who is comatose and being killed has a 0% (close enough to 0% to be effectively zero) chance of leaving the comatose state.

Crow
August 16th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

Excellent point.

The comatose have something that an embryo does not - Prior sentience and an interest in regaining awareness before the onset of the comatose state. Every person who goes to sleep does so with the expectation and interest of waking up the next morning. The zygote at conception has no such thing since it never was sentient to begin with.

The difference between the two is that one has temporarily lost sentience and can regain it, where as the other never had it and is not capable of it (yet).

To answer your question directly:

Yes, generally, killing the comatose (defined as someone who was previously sentient, but is no longer) is murder, unless it can be shown that the one who is comatose and being killed has a 0% (close enough to 0% to be effectively zero) chance of leaving the comatose state.

Why would "prior" factor into the equation? The comatose aren't sentinent now. Why does past sentinence modify what one does in the present?

Sleeping, BTW, is not a lack of sentinence, it is a normal resting state. Brain function is normal during sleeping--it is different from normal brain function during waking, but it is not a lack of sentinence. Among the many benefits attatched to sleep, there is speculation that the mind is activly using the time to seek resolution to problems faced in the waking hours, which suggests a cause for frequent dreams that involve waking situations.

A fetus has a near 100% probability of achieving sentinence if not killed. Why do you view a non-sentinent adult differently? One who has, say, a 50% chance of regaining sentinence?

What does a past state have to do with determining whether one has a right to live or die, when one is not exibiting sentinence currently? For that matter, a corpse once possessed sentinence. Why would the past be a factor in the present status?

Art Deco
August 17th, 2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

Feeling pain DOES constitute sentience. No one here is saying otherwise. The whole POINT is that since a zygote at conception IS NOT CAPABLE of feeling pain (among other things) and thus killing it is not murder.

Read the thread. :doh:


No, you re-read the thread...No one can dispute that from conception to a breathing air birth, the entire process of growth to natural death is part of a verifiable life cycle.

Only a fool would ignore the obvious. The human life cycle begins at conception and ends at natural death.

smothers
August 17th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

God owes you nothing smothers. He didn't have to do anything for you, and He still doesn't. And for you to assume that He does is presumptious. You are selfish, and greedy. Get over yourself. You gain yourself no satisfaction when you want what isn't yours.

She demands that I worship her, and attend her fan-club. I think the LEAST she can give me is absolute undisputable proof of her existance. Until then I'll continue doubting her existance.

Lighthouse
August 18th, 2004, 02:17 AM
God demands nothing of you. God loves you. That is the bottom line. God doesn't even demand that you attend a church. If there is no God, why do you continue to refer to God with pronouns? God wants you to love God back, but God will not force you. Doubt all you want. One day God will prove God's existence to you.

Art Deco
August 18th, 2004, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by smothers

She demands that I worship her, and attend her fan-club. I think the LEAST she can give me is absolute undisputable proof of her existance. Until then I'll continue doubting her existance.


Mocking God will play as an endless loop in your mind while you're roasting in the "Lake of Fire." Enjoy your present existence the next one will be a living hell... :shocked:

smothers
August 18th, 2004, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Mocking God will play as an endless loop in your mind while you're roasting in the "Lake of Fire." Enjoy your present existence the next one will be a living hell... :shocked:

Flater God or roast in hell? Not a religion I would want to join.

And with that I will be signing off from this thread.

avatar382
August 18th, 2004, 08:54 AM
No, you re-read the thread...No one can dispute that from conception to a breathing air birth, the entire process of growth to natural death is part of a verifiable life cycle.

Only a fool would ignore the obvious. The human life cycle begins at conception and ends at natural death.

I am not arguing against the notion that the human "life-cycle" begins at conception.

I am arguing that for a time after conceception, the zygote/embryo has no brain/central nervous system, is not capable of sentience, and this, is not a person.

This "life-cycle" you keep rambling about is irrelevant.

Delmar
August 18th, 2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by smothers

Flater God or roast in hell? Not a religion I would want to join.

And with that I will be signing off from this thread. no problem. no one is going to force you.

Art Deco
August 18th, 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

I am not arguing against the notion that the human "life-cycle" begins at conception.

I am arguing that for a time after conceception, the zygote/embryo has no brain/central nervous system, is not capable of sentience, and this, is not a person.

This "life-cycle" you keep rambling about is irrelevant.


Listen you air-head, your childish one note argument based on what you and you alone consider an appropriate arbitrary time to kill a developing human being is beneath contempt. You and your ilk are a cancer on the soul of America today.


The human life-cycle trumps your feeble attempt to qualify life. Your arrogant presumption that you have the right to qualify human life is despicable, immoral, and inhuman. You would make a great Secular Humanist Democrat. Your credentials are first rate.

Art Deco
August 18th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Flater God or roast in hell? Not a religion I would want to join.

And with that I will be signing off from this thread. LOL, can't stand the heat? Wait till one split second after you draw your last breath here on earth... :dead: :wave:

Lighthouse
August 18th, 2004, 11:05 PM
Anyone notice the coward never responded to my post, before "signing off?"

Crow
August 18th, 2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

I am not arguing against the notion that the human "life-cycle" begins at conception.

I am arguing that for a time after conceception, the zygote/embryo has no brain/central nervous system, is not capable of sentience, and this, is not a person.

This "life-cycle" you keep rambling about is irrelevant.

Then is it OK to dismember a comatose human being? They are not capable of sentinence. They once were sentinent, but the past is the past. A corpse was once sentinent, and those are buried and burned routinely. So what would make us instinctively know that it is not OK to dismember a comatose human being?

The fact is that humanity and it's inherent right to live is not based on sentinence, and at some level most of us understand this, even if we do not acknowledge it.

What is not directly before our faces becomes more comfortable. We change the TV channel when there's a pitch for the starving famine kid of the week on. If the same kid knocked on our door, we'd drag him in and feed him.

I have yet to see the person who would think it is OK to hack the comatose to death, and yet by the sentinence standard, they are no more a "person" than a zygote. Because feti inhabit a hidden world out of our sight, we are able to dehumanize them and feel that they are somehow not entitled to live if their lives present an inconvenience. The comatose person is visible, and this is why we do not murder them. They are not tucked away from our sight; we are not comfortable in denying their humanity.

avatar382
August 19th, 2004, 08:10 AM
Crow, I meant to respond to your previous post yesterday but didn't get the chance.


Why would "prior" factor into the equation? The comatose aren't sentinent now. Why does past sentinence modify what one does in the present?

Someone who is comatose was once aware (sentinent) and once had a life. Such a person, before becoming comatose, has an interest in continuing that life. If there is a chance that our comatose friend can regain conciousness, that interest is worth something, is it not?

The zygote at conception has zero interests - since it has never before been sentinent. It has no previous "life", because it was never previously concious. Eventually, it will be, but it is not at the present.

It is this interest that differentiates the comatose from a zygote at conception.


Then is it OK to dismember a comatose human being? They are not capable of sentinence. They once were sentinent, but the past is the past. A corpse was once sentinent, and those are buried and burned routinely. So what would make us instinctively know that it is not OK to dismember a comatose human being?

If the comatose person in question has a zero percent chance (or close enough) for recovery, and expressed a wish to be dismemebered upon death, then why not?

If the person in question has not expressed a desire to be dismembered upon death, then doing so could be potentially disrespectful, and it's pretty bad to be disrespectful to the dead... but other than that, I don't see any problems...


The fact is that humanity and it's inherent right to live is not based on sentinence, and at some level most of us understand this, even if we do not acknowledge it.

What is it based on, then? Obviously, to be a person, an entitity must at the very least be alive and human in origin. However, if this is all there is, then our organs are persons (alive and human), cancer cells are persons (alive, human, and genetically distinct) ... Surely, you don't consider a tumor to be a person...



I have yet to see the person who would think it is OK to hack the comatose to death, and yet by the sentinence standard, they are no more a "person" than a zygote. Because feti inhabit a hidden world out of our sight, we are able to dehumanize them and feel that they are somehow not entitled to live if their lives present an inconvenience. The comatose person is visible, and this is why we do not murder them. They are not tucked away from our sight; we are not comfortable in denying their humanity.

I have already responded to your point about what makes a zygote/embryo different than the comatose, but you make an excellent point about what we don't see makes us more comfortable. I completely agree with you there.

The fact is, many of our social policies make it easy for a woman to choose abortion. When you are working 3 dead end jobs and can barely support yourself, the prospect of a child I imagine can be downright terrifying. I'm not trying to present this as an excuse to justify abortion, but to point out that in many ways, it is encouraged by the way we treat our poor and destitute.

avatar382
August 19th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Listen you air-head, your childish one note argument based on what you and you alone consider an appropriate arbitrary time to kill a developing human being is beneath contempt. You and your ilk are a cancer on the soul of America today.

The human life-cycle trumps your feeble attempt to qualify life. Your arrogant presumption that you have the right to qualify human life is despicable, immoral, and inhuman. You would make a great Secular Humanist Democrat. Your credentials are first rate.

Ad-hominem attacks are not necessary. Attack my arguments, not my character.

Also, the popluarity of an argument has nothing to do with it's merit. That said, My position is conservative compared to the majority of public opinion.

Oh, and we all qualify human life all the time. You apparently don't realize it when you do it.

philosophizer
August 19th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Crow

Then is it OK to dismember a comatose human being? They are not capable of sentinence. They once were sentinent, but the past is the past. A corpse was once sentinent, and those are buried and burned routinely. So what would make us instinctively know that it is not OK to dismember a comatose human being?

The fact is that humanity and it's inherent right to live is not based on sentinence, and at some level most of us understand this, even if we do not acknowledge it.

What is not directly before our faces becomes more comfortable. We change the TV channel when there's a pitch for the starving famine kid of the week on. If the same kid knocked on our door, we'd drag him in and feed him.

I have yet to see the person who would think it is OK to hack the comatose to death, and yet by the sentinence standard, they are no more a "person" than a zygote. Because feti inhabit a hidden world out of our sight, we are able to dehumanize them and feel that they are somehow not entitled to live if their lives present an inconvenience. The comatose person is visible, and this is why we do not murder them. They are not tucked away from our sight; we are not comfortable in denying their humanity.


:first:

Art Deco
August 19th, 2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

Ad-hominem attacks are not necessary. Attack my arguments, not my character.

Also, the popluarity of an argument has nothing to do with it's merit. That said, My position is conservative compared to the majority of public opinion.

Oh, and we all qualify human life all the time. You apparently don't realize it when you do it. Your arguments are a window on your character and your soul. You and your arguments are beneath contempt. You and Hitler are classic psychopathic soul-mates.



You qualify human life for the purpose of killing it. You're sick, twisted, and sub-human. How's that for an attack on your character? Richly deserved I might add. :sozo:

Crow
August 19th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

Someone who is comatose was once aware (sentinent) and once had a life. Such a person, before becoming comatose, has an interest in continuing that life. If there is a chance that our comatose friend can regain conciousness, that interest is worth something, is it not?

That "interest" is just as much "interest" as a fetus has. The possibility of sentinence, which in the case of the fetus is many times more probable.


The zygote at conception has zero interests - since it has never before been sentinent. It has no previous "life", because it was never previously concious. Eventually, it will be, but it is not at the present.

It has no previous life. And? Eventually, the comatose person might become sentinent. The zygote probably will.

What, exactly, interests do you think the adult comatose have? You would have to be sentinent to have interests and preferences. Unless, of course, one's interests are not basic to one's awareness, but a basic right common to all human life by virtue of being alive, exclusive to sentinence.


It is this interest that differentiates the comatose from a zygote at conception.

A zygote pursues life in the only way a zygote can--it implants, grows, and develops. As we continue to do throughout our life, until we decline. In whatever manner is within our capacity at our present state of maturity.


If the comatose person in question has a zero percent chance (or close enough) for recovery, and expressed a wish to be dismemebered upon death, then why not?

If the person in question has not expressed a desire to be dismembered upon death, then doing so could be potentially disrespectful, and it's pretty bad to be disrespectful to the dead... but other than that, I don't see any problems...

You are sidestepping here. I am not speaking about dismembering the comatose after death.

I am speaking about a living comatose person, who is no more sentinent, and has less prospect of being so in the future than a fetus. Feti are alive and hacked to death routinely by abortion clinics. If one applies the sentinence standard consistantly, it is OK to hack a living comatose person to death.


What is it based on, then? Obviously, to be a person, an entitity must at the very least be alive and human in origin. However, if this is all there is, then our organs are persons (alive and human), cancer cells are persons (alive, human, and genetically distinct) ... Surely, you don't consider a tumor to be a person...

An organ is a structure of tissues that will never mature into a distinct organism. The same with cancers. They will not mature into a distinct organism. Your thumb is human tissue, but it will never become a separate and distinct human being. A human is a specific living organism. No one has suggested that individual tissues should be accorded the status of a human being in this debate, unless I missed something.


I have already responded to your point about what makes a zygote/embryo different than the comatose, but you make an excellent point about what we don't see makes us more comfortable. I completely agree with you there.

The fact is, many of our social policies make it easy for a woman to choose abortion. When you are working 3 dead end jobs and can barely support yourself, the prospect of a child I imagine can be downright terrifying. I'm not trying to present this as an excuse to justify abortion, but to point out that in many ways, it is encouraged by the way we treat our poor and destitute.

Choices, not "our social policies," are what bring about the majority of pregnancies, be they wanted or unwanted.

There are many resources availiable to the pregnant woman in the form of housing assistance, financial support, health care, assistance in finding employment, assistance in obtaining schooling, assistance in obtaining schooling or training, assistance in obtaining child care, the whole spectrum. There are numerous right to life organizations who will make sure the pregnant woman has the resources she needs, whether she keeps her child, or gives the child up for adoption.

The poor and destitute have many prolife organizations eager to help them. Women with an unwanted pregnancy need only pick up the phone book and call for help, and it will be found for them. They have to pick up the phonebook anyway to call for an abortion provider. Abortion alternatives are right next to abortion providers. Usually on the same page.

And it isn't just the poor and destitute aborting their children.

avatar382
August 19th, 2004, 09:25 PM
Your arguments are a window on your character and your soul. You and your arguments are beneath contempt. You and Hitler are classic psychopathic soul-mates.

You qualify human life for the purpose of killing it. You're sick, twisted, and sub-human.

Although I disagree with your viewpoints, I have treated you with respect. I suppose it is beyond your capabilities to do the same to me. For one who professes such a high standard of morality, you don't have much in the way of manners.


How's that for an attack on your character?

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! I wave my private parts at your auntie, you cheesy second hand electric donkey-bottom biter! I burst my pimples at you, tiny-brained wiper of other people's bottoms! :chuckle: :bannana:

Art Deco
August 20th, 2004, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by avatar382

Although I disagree with your viewpoints, I have treated you with respect. I suppose it is beyond your capabilities to do the same to me. For one who professes such a high standard of morality, you don't have much in the way of manners.


Listen creep, when you support the killing of innocent human life you deserve all the condemnation any God fearing human can heap on your head.



Posted by Avatar 382:
I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! I wave my private parts at your auntie, you cheesy second hand electric donkey-bottom biter! I burst my pimples at you, tiny-brained wiper of other people's bottoms! :chuckle: :bannana:


Scum rises to the top...you just hit the surface... :angel:

avatar382
August 20th, 2004, 09:26 AM
EDIT: Please read the whole post before replying point by point, it's easy to miss the big picture if you focus on refuting all the tiny details...


That "interest" is just as much "interest" as a fetus has. The possibility of sentinence, which in the case of the fetus is many times more probable.

If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that I said the comatose has an interest before becoming comatose. We (sentient human beings) all have this interest - an interest in living out the life we are currently living.

I agree with the statement that the comatose do not have interests while they are in their state of coma, however, as I said before, they had an interest in living out their life before losing awareness, and, if they have a decent chance of regaining conciousness, that interest in living the person had prior to losing awareness is certainly worth something.

A zygote/young embryo does not have and never had an interest in living out its life yet. It was never self-aware. The fact that it will have these things in the future doesn't negate the fact that it doesn't have them now.


It has no previous life. And? Eventually, the comatose person might become sentinent. The zygote probably will.

What, exactly, interests do you think the adult comatose have? You would have to be sentinent to have interests and preferences. Unless, of course, one's interests are not basic to one's awareness, but a basic right common to all human life by virtue of being alive, exclusive to sentinence.

I am going to skip this for now in an effort to focus on other areas of the discussion...


You are sidestepping here. I am not speaking about dismembering the comatose after death.

I am speaking about a living comatose person, who is no more sentinent, and has less prospect of being so in the future than a fetus. Feti are alive and hacked to death routinely by abortion clinics. If one applies the sentinence standard consistantly, it is OK to hack a living comatose person to death.

Let me be more clear then.
If the comatose person has a chance for recovery, then their life should be protected by virtue of the fact that although they are not sentient now, they were in the past, and have built a life, and have (or had, depending on your viewpoint) an interest in continuing their life. Their lack of self-awareness can be seen as a temporary condition.

If the comatose person has zero (or close enough) chance for recovery, then they are effectively dead, and should be given whatever rights are afforded to people after they are dead. (not sure what that would be)

You can see where getting at - the difference between a zygote that is a a few days old to someone in a coma is that in the comatose, the condition is temporary, and before becoming comatose, the individual was already a person. The only thing that can revoke personhood is brain death, or a condition that is equivalent to brain death (in a coma, with zero chance of recovery)

A zygote's case is different. I don't see the formation of a human being as a black and white, binary event, like one second, you have a sperm and egg, and another second, you have a person. I think this is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. In my view, Human development is a continuum.

A few seconds after fertilization, the new life isn't too far from what is was before fertilzation, just like a 17 year old 30 minutes from his 18th birthday isn't too far from what he/she will be when the clock strikes 12 and the minor is now legally an adult. As a society, we place arbitrary lines to divide between two stages of human development.

Of course, you know that my argument is that personhood is developed, and it's not developed until some time after fertilization. This brings us to discuss... what is it that makes a a living human being a person?


An organ is a structure of tissues that will never mature into a distinct organism. The same with cancers. They will not mature into a distinct organism. Your thumb is human tissue, but it will never become a separate and distinct human being. A human is a specific living organism. No one has suggested that individual tissues should be accorded the status of a human being in this debate, unless I missed something.

So, do you agree with me that it is not sufficent for an entitiy to be merely alive and human in origin to be a person? You allude to a third criteron, "potental to mature", but I'd like you to expand on it a little. When you say "they will not mature into a "distinct organism", what excatly do you mean?

It is true that an organ, as a whole, is dependant on other organs to serve it's purpose, so in that sense, my example was bad. However about an individual cell? Human cells can live out their lives in a petri dish, and can reproduce, so biologically, they can be viewed as organisms. Organisms that happen to be part of a larger organism, sure, but organisms nonetheless, just as bacteria. Now, they do have the same DNA as the person they came from so you could argue that they are not distinct, but not in the case of cancer cells.

So, cancer cells are organisms that are alive, human in origin, and genetically disctinct from any other human entity. Cancer cells are clearly not persons. What makes a person a person, then?


Choices, not "our social policies," are what bring about the majority of pregnancies, be they wanted or unwanted.

There are many resources availiable to the pregnant woman in the form of housing assistance, financial support, health care, assistance in finding employment, assistance in obtaining schooling, assistance in obtaining schooling or training, assistance in obtaining child care, the whole spectrum. There are numerous right to life organizations who will make sure the pregnant woman has the resources she needs, whether she keeps her child, or gives the child up for adoption.

The poor and destitute have many prolife organizations eager to help them. Women with an unwanted pregnancy need only pick up the phone book and call for help, and it will be found for them. They have to pick up the phonebook anyway to call for an abortion provider. Abortion alternatives are right next to abortion providers. Usually on the same page.

And it isn't just the poor and destitute aborting their children.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. Still, there is much more we can do as a society to reduce the abortion rate, even while it is still legal. Wouldn't you agree?

avatar382
August 20th, 2004, 10:01 AM
Listen creep, when you support the killing of innocent human life you deserve all the condemnation any God fearing human can heap on your head.

Unless you spend your life shooting physicians who perform abortions, a la Paul Hill, you are either a hypocrite or a coward. Which is it?

aikido7
August 20th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Listen creep, when you support the killing of innocent human life you deserve all the condemnation any God fearing human can heap on your head.

Justify murder, justify killing, justify condemnation. Why is there war? Murder? Abortion? Christianity?

What fools we mortals be.

Art Deco
August 20th, 2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by aikido7 What fools we mortals be. Speak for yourself Aikido...

Art Deco
August 20th, 2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

Unless you spend your life shooting physicians who perform abortions, a la Paul Hill, you are either a hypocrite or a coward. Which is it? Paul Hill was ahead of his time... Hatred for all abortion and abortionists is growing but not fast enough for some of us...

Crow
August 20th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

EDIT: Please read the whole post before replying point by point, it's easy to miss the big picture if you focus on refuting all the tiny details...

If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that I said the comatose has an interest before becoming comatose. We (sentient human beings) all have this interest - an interest in living out the life we are currently living. This is why 'personhood' makes such an awkward qualification for the right to existance.

I agree with the statement that the comatose do not have interests while they are in their state of coma, however, as I said before, they had an interest in living out their life before losing awareness, and, if they have a decent chance of regaining conciousness, that interest in living the person had prior to losing awareness is certainly worth something.

A zygote/young embryo does not have and never had an interest in living out its life yet. It was never self-aware. The fact that it will have these things in the future doesn't negate the fact that it doesn't have them now.

The zygote or young embryo stage is also a temporary stage.

It has more than a decent chance of gaining consciousness.

The fact that the comatose might have self awareness in the future doesn't negate that they do not have these things now.

If "personhood" is the quality that entitles a human to life, and "personhood" hinges on sentinence, the comatose and the fetus have the same condition--potential for sentinence. This potential is considerably higher in the fetus. Kill the comatose, and they don't know what they're missing. Literally. The same as the fetus.

I have seen the big picture. This is why I reject "personhood" as a qualification to whether one can make an elective decision to terminate human life or not. When one applies it to the comatose, it doesn't work. I know that it is not OK to hack them to death. Not because they were once sentinent. Otherwise corpses would have the same rights. I know that living humans, whether comatose, retarded, sleeping, or fetal have an inherent right to not be hacked to death. Because of humanity. I don't have to sit and ponder whether I should grant them "personhood" or not.



I am going to skip this for now in an effort to focus on other areas of the discussion...

Let me be more clear then.
If the comatose person has a chance for recovery, then their life should be protected by virtue of the fact that although they are not sentient now, they were in the past, and have built a life, and have (or had, depending on your viewpoint) an interest in continuing their life. Their lack of self-awareness can be seen as a temporary condition.

If the comatose person has zero (or close enough) chance for recovery, then they are effectively dead, and should be given whatever rights are afforded to people after they are dead. (not sure what that would be)

You can see where getting at - the difference between a zygote that is a a few days old to someone in a coma is that in the comatose, the condition is temporary, and before becoming comatose, the individual was already a person. The only thing that can revoke personhood is brain death, or a condition that is equivalent to brain death (in a coma, with zero chance of recovery)

A zygote's case is different. I don't see the formation of a human being as a black and white, binary event, like one second, you have a sperm and egg, and another second, you have a person. I think this is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. In my view, Human development is a continuum.

A few seconds after fertilization, the new life isn't too far from what is was before fertilzation, just like a 17 year old 30 minutes from his 18th birthday isn't too far from what he/she will be when the clock strikes 12 and the minor is now legally an adult. As a society, we place arbitrary lines to divide between two stages of human development.

Of course, you know that my argument is that personhood is developed, and it's not developed until some time after fertilization. This brings us to discuss... what is it that makes a a living human being a person?



So, do you agree with me that it is not sufficent for an entitiy to be merely alive and human in origin to be a person? You allude to a third criteron, "potental to mature", but I'd like you to expand on it a little. When you say "they will not mature into a "distinct organism", what excatly do you mean?

I do not require "personhood" as a qualification for humanity. That is your argument, not mine. I consider each living human being a human being. Whether they can vote, operate a motor vehicle, state their name and address, nurse, toddle, or not.

You do not. You require the furthur qualification of personhood. I do not believe that it is acceptable to arbitrarily kill a human in any stage of it's life. Comatose or otherwise. And the lack of self-awareness is as temporary in a fetus as in a comatose individual.


If sentinence and self-awareness and having built a life in the past are the determining factors in whether a human should not be killed, the squirrel in my yard would be a "person" to a greater degree than the comatose, or the day old baby, or the week old baby.

The personhood, sentinence, self-awareness, and building a past arguments simply do not work when I apply them.


A distinct organism is one living being. One corn plant. One human being. One dog. One fish. I hope that is sufficient elaboration for you.


It is true that an organ, as a whole, is dependant on other organs to serve it's purpose, so in that sense, my example was bad. However about an individual cell? Human cells can live out their lives in a petri dish, and can reproduce, so biologically, they can be viewed as organisms. Organisms that happen to be part of a larger organism, sure, but organisms nonetheless, just as bacteria. Now, they do have the same DNA as the person they came from so you could argue that they are not distinct, but not in the case of cancer cells.

So, cancer cells are organisms that are alive, human in origin, and genetically disctinct from any other human entity. Cancer cells are clearly not persons. What makes a person a person, then?

A cancer cell is a tissue that is diseased. A cell, cancerous or not, is a part of an organism, not a whole. It will exist until it is destroyed, removed, or until it kills the person it afflicts. It can be maintained in culture, sometimes indefinately. But it is a diseased tissue of human, or dog, or mouse, or whatever the source may be. Not an organism. If you accidentally cut your thumb off, it is a human tissue. Not a human organism.

A fetus is not a disease. It is a human being in an early state of existance.


Generally speaking, I agree with you. Still, there is much more we can do as a society to reduce the abortion rate, even while it is still legal. Wouldn't you agree?

There is much to do. Illegalizing abortion is the best start. Despite the resources availiable, people continue to abort their babies.

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Crow There is much to do. Illegalizing abortion is the best start. Despite the resources availiable, people continue to abort their babies.


Having said that, can we agree that all who call themselves Christians should vote against all Democrats in every election, since the Secular Humanist Democrat Party supports and defends Abortion on demand?

Zakath
August 22nd, 2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Having said that, can we agree that all who call themselves Christians should vote against all Democrats in every election, since the Secular Humanist Democrat Party supports and defends Abortion on demand? All Democrats are evil and all Republicans are good, eh? :doh:

Simple ideas for simple minds like yours, eh AD? :freak:


Don't forget that there are pro-life Democrats...

http://www.democratsforlife.org/



There are also pro-choice Republicans...

http://www.rpcc.org/about/index.shtml

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

All Democrats are evil and all Republicans are good, eh? The Party is Evil and the majority of those that support the Party are by extension evil. Those who are pro-life need to join the Pro-Life Republican Party.


Posted by Zak:
Don't forget that there are pro-life Democrats...

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

They need to wise up and abandon this Godless perverted Political Party. They are mentally conflicted.


Posted by Zak:
there are also pro-choice Republicans...

http://www.rpcc.org/about/index.shtml

These RINOs need to leave the Republican Party and move over to the Democrat Party where they would be right at home. They can find it by following the smell...

Husband&Father
August 22nd, 2004, 09:57 PM
Zakath wrote:
[All Democrats are evil and all Republicans are good, eh? Simple ideas for simple minds like yours, eh AD? Don't forget that there are pro-life Democrats...]

With both houses so closely divided it would make sense for one interested in keeping the more pro-life party in power to vote along party lines first.

The Party in power sets the agenda. A principled vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-choice Republican that cost the pro-life party the majority would do much more harm than good to the pro-life cause.

At this stage in the game and with the majority hanging by a thread I would have to agree with Art Deco and recommend voting against all Democrats. So all you Christians in PA hold your nose, vote Spector and pray for him.

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Paul Hill was ahead of his time... Hatred for all abortion and abortionists is growing but not fast enough for some of us...

Actually, Hill was behind the times. Remember his forerunner, John Brown. Another murderous fanatic wrapped in self-righteousness.

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 07:54 AM
"The Party in power sets the agenda. A principled vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-choice Republican that cost the pro-life party the majority would do much more harm than good to the pro-life cause."

Pragmatism at its worst: sacrifice the better candidate because he carries the wrong label.

And people wonder why the pro-life movement's starting to spin its wheels.

avatar382
August 23rd, 2004, 08:52 AM
If "personhood" is the quality that entitles a human to life, and "personhood" hinges on sentinence, the comatose and the fetus have the same condition--potential for sentinence. This potential is considerably higher in the fetus. Kill the comatose, and they don't know what they're missing. Literally. The same as the fetus.

I guess neither of us will budge on the comatose vs. 1 week old zygote issue, so I propose we move on.

Question for you: Why do you believe that a human's life is more precious than say a dolphin's, a cow's, or even an insect?


I know that living humans, whether comatose, retarded, sleeping, or fetal have an inherent right to not be hacked to death. Because of humanity.

What, preciesely, do you mean by "humanity"? Are you referring to the mere quality of being a member of the homo sapiens species? Or is there something else that makes human life precious (or more precious than any other life)? If so, why?

EDIT:
I'd like to clarify that I personally believe a human's life is worth more than an animal or other being. I just want to explore why you believe it, in an effort to figure out where my reasons differ from yours. I believe we hold a difference of opinion in this area and it would be interesting to explore it.

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

The Party is Evil and the majority of those that support the Party are by extension evil. Those who are pro-life need to join the Pro-Life Republican Party.


Posted by Zak:

They need to wise up and abandon this Godless perverted Political Party. They are mentally conflicted.


Posted by Zak:

These RINOs need to leave the Republican Party and move over to the Democrat Party where they would be right at home. They can find it by following the smell...

Not all voters are single-issue voters. Hence the split in the GOP and the Democrats.

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Not all voters are single-issue voters. Hence the split in the GOP and the Democrats. I see, envronmental issues trump butchering a defenseless child in the womb. These are the evil sob's I'm talking about. :madmad:

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Actually, Hill was behind the times. Remember his forerunner, John Brown. Another murderous fanatic wrapped in self-righteousness.


I don't recall John Brown hanging for defending the unborn child. Paul Hill was not allowed, by the trial judge, to use the defense that he was acting to protect the life of an unborn child. Paul Hill's blood is on the hands of the trial judge and the wimps in the jury.

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by granite1010 And people wonder why the pro-life movement's starting to spin its wheels. If self proclaimed Christians would wise up and vote for the Republican Party instead of the perverted pro death Party, we could end abortion within ten years.

Imrahil
August 23rd, 2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

If self proclaimed Christians would wise up and vote for the Republican Party instead of the perverted pro death Party, we could end abortion within ten years. I wish that werew true but the Republicans are hardly as pro-life as that.

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Imrahil

I wish that werew true but the Republicans are hardly as pro-life as that. You don't know what your talking about. Republicans passed the Bill banning "Partial Birth" abortion twice under Bill Clinton. He vetoed it twice being the good Nazi Democrat he is. The Bill was passed again under GW. Bush signed the Bill into law while the pro-abortion Democrats whined and pitched a hissy fit.

Imrahil
August 23rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
And how many children do you think that bill saved?

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Imrahil

And how many children do you think that bill saved?


If it saved one it was worth the effort. Please note the Secular Humanist Democrats would not have saved any.

Imrahil
August 23rd, 2004, 07:19 PM
I am by no means supporting the Democratic Party or Secular Humanism. I am merely saying that bill was of little if any use and the Republican Party is not nearly as pro-life as I wish it was.