PDA

View Full Version : ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts



Jefferson
May 31st, 2002, 12:49 AM
Have you seen the new General Electric commercial? You can view it at . . .
http://kgov.com/Gallery/choice/GEultrasound.rm

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 02:20 AM
I didn't know that there were any pro-abortion people at T.O.L.

:confused:

Freak
May 31st, 2002, 12:38 PM
Sure there are, Evangelion.

Are you that blind?

Jefferson
May 31st, 2002, 12:39 PM
Evangelion:

What do you think of General Electric's new commercial? Do you hate it? Do you want it off the air?

Goose
May 31st, 2002, 12:40 PM
AWESOME! Great video! It brought a tear to my eye. Has anyone actually seen it on tv yet?

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 12:46 PM
Jefferson -


What do you think of General Electric's new commercial?

Looks great! :)


Do you hate it?

It's a bit soppy, but no, I don't hate it. Why would I?


Do you want it off the air?

No, why would I?

Could you please stop projecting? It's utterly transparent, and quite childish.

:rolleyes:

Projill
May 31st, 2002, 01:29 PM
The commercial seems okay to me. What's your point?

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 01:32 PM
He's trying to paint me as an abortion advocate, despite the fact that I have made it clear (on many occasions) that (a) I am not pro-abortion, but merely pro-choice, and (b) I would only agree to an abortion if it was offered before the third trimester, as the only way of saving the mother's life.

:rolleyes:

Projill
May 31st, 2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Evangelion
He's trying to paint me as an abortion advocate, despite the fact that I have made it clear (on many occasions) that (a) I am not pro-abortion, but merely pro-choice, and (b) I would only agree to an abortion if it was offered before the third trimester, as the only way of saving the mother's life.

:rolleyes:

Join the club. Knight does that to me all the time.

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Evangelion
He's trying to paint me as an abortion advocate, despite the fact that I have made it clear (on many occasions) that (a) I am not pro-abortion, but merely pro-choice, and (b) I would only agree to an abortion if it was offered before the third trimester, as the only way of saving the mother's life.

:rolleyes: If that is the case why would you define yourself as "pro-choice"?

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Projill


Join the club. Knight does that to me all the time. Does what to you?

You have stated many times that you are pro-choice.

If you define yourself as "pro-choice" then why should I think otherwise?

Just recently you stated you would support abortion until there are no longer any "unwanted children". You may as well say "forever".


You advocate the following....

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 02:41 PM
Because I don't impose my choice on other people.

I think they should make up their own minds.

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Evangelion
Because I don't impose my choice on other people.

I think they should make up their own minds.
How incredibly mindless you are.

When you murder someone you impose YOUR WILL ON THEM!!!!

It is inevitable that a "will" will get forced upon someone one way or the other.

IF........

A. Abortion is illegal - the will of the government gets forced on the mother so that she must choose another option besides abortion.

B. Abortion is legal - the will of the mother and the pro-aborts gets forced upon the helpless baby.

The truth is, you have no problem enforcing your "will" upon other people as long as its the innocent baby.

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 02:52 PM
Jefferson, the commercial was AWESOME!

I had to go to the GE site to view it.

http://www.gemedicalsystems.com/rad/us/4d/commercial.html

jes1994
May 31st, 2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Evangelion
Because I don't impose my choice on other people.

I think they should make up their own minds.
You have said before you would like the US gov't to impose your will on me and remove the guns I have for self-defense purposes.

Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by jes1994

You have said before you would like the US gov't to impose your will on me and remove the guns I have for self-defense purposes.

Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal? Great point Jes, I almost made it myself but you did it better anyway!

Projill
May 31st, 2002, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Does what to you?

You have stated many times that you are pro-choice.

If you define yourself as "pro-choice" then why should I think otherwise?

Just recently you stated you would support abortion until there are no longer any "unwanted children". You may as well say "forever".


You advocate the following....


So what's your plan to get rid of abortion? Making it illegal will not make the practice of abortion stop. How do you plan to stop abortion, Knight?

Thanks for the picture, BTW. Unfortunately Jefferson's avatar took the shock value out of aborted fetus photos months ago.

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 05:14 PM
Prokill writes...
Thanks for the picture, BTW. Unfortunately Jefferson's avatar took the shock value out of aborted fetus photos months ago.What a sick person you are.

I can tell you the picture still shocks me!

Knight
May 31st, 2002, 05:15 PM
Prokill writes...
So what's your plan to get rid of abortion? Making it illegal will not make the practice of abortion stop. How do you plan to stop abortion, Knight?That is a lame argument. Rape is illegal yet rape still occurs should we legalize rape since having rape be illegal has not ended rape?

Freak
May 31st, 2002, 05:21 PM
Evangelion,

What is wrong with you? You are a sick individual. You are pro-baby killing. It is simple as that!

Projill
May 31st, 2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Knight
What a sick person you are.

In your professional opinion, Dr.? Listen, suffering through a miscarriage and then receiving no sympathy from Christians about it because one is a liberal tends to make one a bit harder to shock.


I can tell you the picture still shocks me!

Now that doesn't shock me.

Projill
May 31st, 2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Prokill writes...That is a lame argument. Rape is illegal yet rape still occurs should we legalize rape since having rape be illegal has not ended rape?

So what are you saying? You don't want to end abortion, you just look to punish those who provide it or the women who seek it?

me again
May 31st, 2002, 06:35 PM
Posted by Evangelion
I don't impose my choice on other people. I think they should make up their own minds.

Is that for murder too, or just abortion? If a man wants to murder another man, should we allow him to make up his own mind?

:confused:

Just curious.

me again
May 31st, 2002, 06:38 PM
Posted by Freak:
Evangelion, What is wrong with you? You are a sick individual. You are pro-baby killing. It is simple as that!Freak,

Are you saying that so that Evangelion will turn a deaf ear to you or are you trying to point out his error?

:confused:

Just curious.

Atheist_Divine
May 31st, 2002, 07:23 PM
Sheesh, I go away for a while to revise for my exams, go online to a few less busy forums...only to see Jefferson got there before me and posted the same message in several of them! Including II, which was a little surprising.

Anyhow, I didn't watch your commercial - these things tend to crash my computer. Most things crash my computer.

And I didn't find Knight's photo shocking either - I agree with Projil, after seeing Jefferson's avatar over and over those things no longer shock me in the least.

~AD~

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 10:37 PM
Knight -


How incredibly mindless you are.

Ad hominem.


When you murder someone you impose YOUR WILL ON THEM!!!!

I know. What's your point?


It is inevitable that a "will" will get forced upon someone one way or the other.

Agreed. What's your point?


IF........

A. Abortion is illegal - the will of the government gets forced on the mother so that she must choose another option besides abortion.

Agreed.


B. Abortion is legal - the will of the mother and the pro-aborts gets forced upon the helpless baby.

Agreed. And in my case, this would only occur if the mother's life was in danger.


The truth is, you have no problem enforcing your "will" upon other people as long as its the innocent baby.

That's really cute, Knight. I just love your emotivism. :rolleyes: I had already qualified my statement - now you're trying to turn it into a loose generalisation, which won't work. I had said


Because I don't impose my choice on other people.

I think they should make up their own minds.

See that? My choice, not my will. In other words, I wouldn't force other adults to make the same choice. Anyone can see that I was referring to my personal decision in the matter, which applies only to those who are capable of making decisions. Unborn infants are (by definition) excluded.

Now, let me ask you two simple questions - would you refuse to abort a child, even if the death of the child would save the life of the mother? Or would you choose the life of the child over the life of the mother?

Either way, you're imposing your will on someone, so you have no grounds on which to misrepresent me as a happy murderer just because I would prefer to save the mother's life, at the expense of the child's.

I really wish you people would address my argument specifically, instead of turning it into something that I had never written.

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 10:41 PM
Jes -


You have said before you would like the US gov't to impose your will on me and remove the guns I have for self-defense purposes.

But I qualified that statement, Jes. I did not say all guns - I referred specifically to military-grade hardware.


Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

No. Whatever gave you the impression that I believe this?

Like Knight, you have totally ignored the context of my remarks, and chosen to misrepresent what I have written by resorting to a fallacy of equivocation.

That is very disappointing, Jes. When I explain my views to someone, I don't mind if they disagree - but I do mind if they distort what I have written because they'd prefer to attack a weaker position which I do not actually hold, instead of addressing my real position.

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 10:43 PM
Freak -


What is wrong with you? You are a sick individual. You are pro-baby killing. It is simple as that!

This is slander, and I will not stand for it. My position has been carefully explained on many occasions. I defy anyone to claim (in all honesty) that my decision to abort a child before the third trimester for the sole purpose of saving the mother's life, amounts to "pro-baby killing."

It's this kind of dishonesty which really makes me sick.

Freak
May 31st, 2002, 10:47 PM
Leave it God's hands, Evangelion. You're not God so don't give someone the opportunity to make a decision to kill a baby.

Evangelion
May 31st, 2002, 10:57 PM
If my wife and baby were dying, and it was clear that intervention could save at least one of them, I would choose to save my wife.

This does not make me an advocate of "baby-killing", as you all know perfectly well.

jes1994
May 31st, 2002, 11:47 PM
Evangelion,

You said in post #68176 just before the one I quoted (in its entirety) that you were pro-choice. In that post you also said that you would only agree to an abortion in a situation usually referred to as the life of the mother exception.

Because you used the word "agree" and did not say anything about the legality of the procedure in that statement, and because pro-choice usually means that a person believes that the abortion procedure should be legal in many situations, I concluded that you think the procedure should be legal in many situations.

If I am incorrect on what your legal views on the abortion procedure are, please let me know where I am making a mistake and I will do my best to correct the situation. I'm not trying to misrepresent your views. Other people here might be doing so, but I can't control what they post.



... I qualified that statement, Jes. I did not say all guns - I referred specifically to military-grade hardware.
I did not say "all guns" either. I said guns for self-defense. Your country has made the act of a citizen using a gun for self defense illegal, and you have recommended that the USA follow Australia's lead on this matter. Am I correctly understanding your position on this issue?



That is very disappointing, Jes.
I'm not intending to disappoint you. Your statements led me to believe that you held a particular position regarding the legality of a medical procedure, and I was attempting to discuss that legal position with you. How about if you lay out your position and then we'll discuss it? Or if you would prefer, I can lay out my position and we can discuss it. Your call. Part of me is seeing a misunderstanding of a term, and part of me is seeing a true difference of opinion. What can I do in my postings to alleviate this?

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 12:25 AM
Jes -


You said in post #68176 just before the one I quoted (in its entirety) that you were pro-choice.

Correct.


In that post you also said that you would only agree to an abortion in a situation usually referred to as the life of the mother exception.

Correct.


Because you used the word "agree" and did not say anything about the legality of the procedure in that statement, and because pro-choice usually means that a person believes that the abortion procedure should be legal in many situations, I concluded that you think the procedure should be legal in many situations.

Yes, I believe that it should be legal, but I personally believe that it should not be carried out unless the life of the mother could be saved by the termination of the child's, before the third trimester.


If I am incorrect on what your legal views on the abortion procedure are, please let me know where I am making a mistake and I will do my best to correct the situation. I'm not trying to misrepresent your views. Other people here might be doing so, but I can't control what they post.

OK, the only thing I really took offence at, was this:


Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

To me, this is a false equivocation. I had never said that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about everything - I had said that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about the abortion issue. In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.


Quote:
... I qualified that statement, Jes. I did not say all guns - I referred specifically to military-grade hardware.

I did not say "all guns" either. I said guns for self-defense. Your country has made the act of a citizen using a gun for self defense illegal, and you have recommended that the USA follow Australia's lead on this matter. Am I correctly understanding your position on this issue?

Not quite. Australia has not made the use of guns for self defence illegal - it has simply made the carrying of guns for self defence illegal. In other words, it is illegal to bear arms in public, for the purpose of self defence. It is, however, legal to bear arms in public if the purpose is hunting or target shooting. Australian law also states that in the event of a burglary, the owner of the house can defend himself "with reasonable force." If, therefore, the situation is life-threatening, the use of a firearm is permissable.


I'm not intending to disappoint you. Your statements led me to believe that you held a particular position regarding the legality of a medical procedure, and I was attempting to discuss that legal position with you. How about if you lay out your position and then we'll discuss it? Or if you would prefer, I can lay out my position and we can discuss it. Your call. Part of me is seeing a misunderstanding of a term, and part of me is seeing a true difference of opinion. What can I do in my postings to alleviate this?

I hope I've cleared things up. Let me know if you need more detail.

:)

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 01:27 AM
Evangelion,

My point on the guns, and the other question that you took offense at, was to find out if you supported the idea that in some situations government should make certain actions illegal. I hope that we agree on that statement, and just have a disagreement about what situations in particular government should step in for.



In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.


Yes, I believe that it should be legal, but I personally believe that it should not be carried out unless the life of the mother could be saved by the termination of the child's, before the third trimester.

Why is the third trimester the dividing line?

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 03:19 AM
Jes -


My point on the guns, and the other question that you took offense at, was to find out if you supported the idea that in some situations government should make certain actions illegal. I hope that we agree on that statement, and just have a disagreement about what situations in particular government should step in for.

Yes. :up: Thanks for clarifying. :)


Why is the third trimester the dividing line?

Because by this stage, the fetus is usually viable.

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Evangelion
Jes -

Because by this stage, the fetus is usually viable.

So, viability of the fetus should be the criteria for whether or not gov't should step in to make abortion illegal, right?


------------

I do apologize if this sounds like I'm going slow on this. I just don't want to misconstrue your statements if I can avoid doing so.

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 04:38 AM
Do you mean "illegal beyond the third trimester", or "illegal without exception"?

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 05:28 AM
Evangelion,


Do you mean "illegal beyond the third trimester", or "illegal without exception"?
I mean illegal in situations where the continuation of the pregnancy will not cause unreasonable risk to the life of the mother.

In a nutshell, I'm looking for where the trimester distinction originates from. I trying to get beyond trimesters and into the underlying philosophy that results in the trimester distinction.

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 05:33 AM
Jes -


I mean illegal in situations where the continuation of the pregnancy will not cause unreasonable risk to the life of the mother.

This is subject to the moral code under which the government operates - which is itself subject to change. As Christians, it is out of our hands.


In a nutshell, I'm looking for where the trimester distinction originates from. I trying to get beyond trimesters and into the underlying philosophy that results in the trimester distinction.

The trimester distinction (interestingly enough) is one to which your own government subscribes. If I remember correctly, third trimester abortions are not classified as "elective surgery" by the US government - you have to show medical proof of their necessity before you're allowed to go through with the procedure.

I think the idea behind this, is that if the fetus is viable, abortion should not be considered at all.

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 06:31 AM
Evangelion,

This is subject to the moral code under which the government operates - which is itself subject to change. As Christians, it is out of our hands.
As Christians, are we still permitted to have opinions about the moral code?



I think the idea behind this, is that if the fetus is viable, abortion should not be considered at all.
I'm not looking for "should not be considered". I'm asking for legality.

So, without references to trimesters, can you state your position in terms of viability and legality?

Freak
June 1st, 2002, 06:43 AM
Evangelion,

Please bring some clarity to the issue.

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 07:48 AM
Jes -


As Christians, are we still permitted to have opinions about the moral code?

Absolutely. :)


I'm not looking for "should not be considered". I'm asking for legality.

I was giving you the government's position. I was explaining what I believe to be your government's rationale.


So, without references to trimesters, can you state your position in terms of viability and legality.

I don't believe that abortion should be legal. I would only consider it under the exceptional circumstances to which I have already referred.

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 07:49 AM
Freak -


Evangelion,

Please bring some clarity to the issue.

My discussion with Jes1994 is happily blessed with an abundance of clarity.

It's a shame you can't see it.

:rolleyes:

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 07:58 AM
Evangelion,


I don't believe that abortion should be legal.
I was under the impression that such a sentiment constituted a position that was not pro-choice. Previously, you said that you were pro-choice. What am I missing here?

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 08:22 AM
Jes -


I was under the impression that such a sentiment constituted a position that was not pro-choice.

Surprisingly enough, it does not.


Previously, you said that you were pro-choice.

Agreed.


What am I missing here?

The necessary distinction between "what I would prefer to see", and "what is realistic under the current circumstances."

Speaking personally, I do not believe that abortion should be legal. But it is legal, and I cannot change that fact.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I still argue that people should be permitted to make up their own minds on the subject.

Abortion is not the hill on which I choose to die.

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 08:45 AM
Evangelion,


Speaking personally, I do not believe that abortion should be legal. But it is legal, and I cannot change that fact.
Should whether or not you personally can change the legality have an impact on whether or not you personally feel it should be legal?

As I understand things, you and I agree on a "life of the mother exception" to any potential abortion law. And if we do not, I'd rather discuss that exception on a separate thread. So, ignoring that exception, is it possible for you to make a statement tying to together your views on legality of abortion and viability of the fetus, without bringing in any mention of trimesters?

DavidCaroYates
June 1st, 2002, 08:47 AM
Quote:
Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

Euangelion:
To me, this is a false equivocation. I had never said that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about everything - I had said that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about the abortion issue. In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.

DCY:
Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...
I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.

Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!). Indeed, the incidence of a mother's life being genuinely put in jeopardy as the result of her producing a live baby are so rare as to be virtually negligible. It is seriously a situation where, if such circumstances really were the only instance in which an abortion is justifiable, it would, for all intents and purposes, put an end to the practise almost altogether.

Projill, I am sincerely saddened that a pregnancy of yours (or any pregnancy, for that matter) ended in a miscarriage. And I am also saddened that your church community failed to show you the sympathy appropriate for such a terrible event, no matter what your politics might be. (Though I can honestly say that, until you, I have never heard of any Christians reacting thusly to such a situation). However, at the same time, you designate yourself an ideological liberal. That being so, liberals generally pride themselves on standing up for 'the little guy', speaking out on behalf of those who have no voice and fighting for those who are comparatively defenseless. Why is this not so when it is the littlest 'guys' who are in mortal danger? Why are these principles of advocacy not extended to those who are truly voiceless, who are completely defenseless and whose very lives are jeopardised? This is an egregious inconsistency. Please, don't allow the bitterness you likely have a perfect right to be feeling toward those particular Christians who mistreated you to compromise your liberal principles, because in the end, your voice goes out not against them, but against babies.

And to all those who claimed not to feel a sense of shock at the photo of a sliced-up baby: I don't at all mind saying this. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Unless, of course, instead of shock, the feelings that were elicited by the picture were those of revulsion, profound sadness and righteous indignation that any baby should meet with such a truly horrible end. Personally speaking, I have seen countless such photos over the years and they have never once failed to profoundly upset me. And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 08:54 AM
Jes -


Should whether or not you personally can change the legality have an impact on whether or not you personally feel it should be legal?

No. It must stand or fall on its own ethical merits.


As I understand things, you and I agree on a "life of the mother exception" to any potential abortion law.

Yep.


And if we do not, I'd rather discuss that exception on a separate thread.

Fine.


So, ignoring that exception, is it possible for you to make a statement tying to together your views on legality of abortion and viability of the fetus, without bringing in any mention of trimesters?

I thought I already had, in my previous post.

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 09:02 AM
DCY -


Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...

I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.

I can see where he's coming from, but I still maintain that it's a false equivocation. Since I had not argued for the acceptance of abortion as an everyday procedure, but only ever argued for it as a "last resort", there is no comparison between my position on abortion and the question of whether or not people should be allowed to make up their minds about rape, murder, etc. This would only be a legitimate parallel if I had claimed that abortion should be legalised without exception. And yet, that is not the position to which I subscribe.


Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!).

Yes, I know it is. And interestingly enough, Jes1994 agrees with me with regard to this exceptional circumstance.

Atheist_Divine
June 1st, 2002, 09:05 AM
And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.

It is possible to become de-sensitised to images and still remain human. Soldiers become de-sensitised to death, along with everyone else, journalists, aid workers and the like who go to war zones - are they no longer human?

~AD~

DavidCaroYates
June 1st, 2002, 09:13 AM
Evangelion: Abortion is not the hill on which I choose to die.

No, Ev, it's the baby who is doing the dying.
The truth is, as a percentage of the general population (of North America, at least) the number of pro-life advocates who want to disallow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, even should the life of the mother be in legitimate danger (which is, again, exceedingly rare these days) is considerably less than the numbers of those pro-abortion advocates who want to allow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, for any reason, or indeed NO reason, at all. That being the case, Ev, and given your own stated position on this matter, it would seem you're directing your arguments in the wrong direction. There are not likely too many people here who WOULD advocate the mother's death should such a situation genuinely present itself, to begin with!

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 09:18 AM
DCY - I see emotivism, but little relevance.

Could you please be specific?

Thanks.

:)

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 09:31 AM
Evangelion,


I thought I already had, in my previous post.
In post #68370, I attempted to summarize your position as "viability of the fetus should be the criteria for whether or not gov't should step in to make abortion illegal".

Another way of saying this could be "viability of the fetus should be the criteria for legality of abortion". I may have misunderstood your point when I made such a summary. And seeing how other people have been trying to put words into your mouth (so to speak) on the issue, I am trying to be very careful not to do so. Would you agree with either of these statements? If not, can you please modify either one in such a way the statement that does express your philosopy while still referencing legality, viability, and not referencing trimesters?

Evangelion
June 1st, 2002, 09:36 AM
Jes -

I think that development of the fetus, viability of the fetus, and the risk to the mother's life should be the criteria for the legality of abortion.

Is that what you were looking for?

:)

jes1994
June 1st, 2002, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Evangelion
Jes -

I think that development of the fetus, viability of the fetus, and the risk to the mother's life should be the criteria for the legality of abortion.

Is that what you were looking for?

:)

Yes. Now, I need to make two deductions from your statement.

1) Abortion where development of the fetus is past the point of viability should be considered murder, and prosecuted as such under the legal system as murder, with the life of the mother exception.

2) Abortion before development reaches the point of viability should not be prosecuted as murder under the legal system.

Both of these statements seem to me like they are pretty straightforward conclusions coming from your original statement, along with the standard western societal definition of murder. Am I close enough with #1 and #2?

DavidCaroYates
June 2nd, 2002, 04:55 AM
DCY -
Quote:
Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...
I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.


Evangelion:
I can see where he's coming from, but I still maintain that it's a false equivocation. Since I had not argued for the acceptance of abortion as an everyday procedure, but only ever argued for it as a "last resort", there is no comparison between my position on abortion and the question of whether or not people should be allowed to make up their minds about rape, murder, etc. This would only be a legitimate parallel if I had claimed that abortion should be legalised without exception. And yet, that is not the position to which I subscribe.

DCY: All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thoght abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the alegedly false comparisons. Rather, as you only allude above, it was you expressing your position that abortion should be a choice left up to the individual. Given that the procedure results in egregious harm being done to another person, you were asked if you thought other actions that also result in harm being visited upon another should also be simple matters of individual choice. Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

Quote:
DCY: Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!).

Ev: Yes, I know it is. And interestingly enough, Jes1994 agrees with me with regard to this exceptional circumstance.

DCY: That being so, what then is the ultimate point of contention?
As near as I can tell, it is in your assertion that despite your own personal reservations concerning the deliberate termination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy, you nevertheless maintain that you still consider it best left as a matter of personal choice. Again, given that abortions end in the horrible death of a human baby, such a stance is, quite frankly, beyond my ken to understand.
I cannot of course speak to your own personal situation, Ev, but certain others I've come across who've taken much the same position on this issue as you have seem to do so with the underlying intention of endeavouring to maintain some perceived sense of being 'with it'. It is as though coming out publically against abortion is seen as somehow unsophisticated and unenlightened, and has the ostensibly regrettable consequence of thus being grouped with the same. I can understand this concern, but I cannot accept it. Sadly, largely due to the manner in which virtually all forms of the media have chosen to present this issue, it's simply not TRENDY to be against abortion. But, whoever said that following Christ would ever be trendy? As I hope you would agree, Ev, we should not allow our morals to be dictated by something as inconstant as societal trends.

DavidCaroYates
June 2nd, 2002, 05:21 AM
Evangelion: Abortion is not the hill on which I choose to die.

DCY: No, Ev, it's the baby who is doing the dying.
The truth is, as a percentage of the general population (of North America, at least) the number of pro-life advocates who want to disallow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, even should the life of the mother be in legitimate danger (which is, again, exceedingly rare these days) is considerably less than the numbers of those pro-abortion advocates who want to allow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, for any reason, or indeed NO reason, at all. That being the case, Ev, and given your own stated position on this matter, it would seem you're directing your arguments in the wrong direction. There are not likely too many people here who WOULD advocate the mother's death should such a situation genuinely present itself, to begin with!

Evangelion: DCY - I see emotivism, but little relevance.

DCY: Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!? All I asserted above was, given the fact that the vast majority of pro-life advocates are indeed open to the option of allowing abortions only in those extremely rare circumstances that, should the pregnancy be carried to term, the mother's life would be genuinely jeopardized (a position which you expressed is in concert with your own), coupled with the fact that there are far more pro-abortion advocates who demand a completely free and open abortion license for any reason whatever--or indeed NO reason at all (which is something with which you are supposedly uncomfortable)--then it seems to me you're picking a fight with the wrong people, Ev. That is my only point here.

Ev: Could you please be specific?
Thanks.

DCY: Happily. But specific concerning what exactly?

DavidCaroYates
June 2nd, 2002, 05:41 AM
Quote:
DCY: And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.

Atheist-Divine (A-D): It is possible to become de-sensitised to images and still remain human. Soldiers become de-sensitised to death, along with everyone else, journalists, aid workers and the like who go to war zones - are they no longer human?

DCY: Of course this is POSSIBLE, A-D, but surely it is not DESIRABLE--especially where horribly murdered, defenseless babies are concerned. Shouldn't this 'de-sensitisation' to which you refer be guarded against? And, in point of fact, to the degree to which soldiers and journalists and the like are genuinely de-sensitised to such images, I think they do lose a bit of their humanity--and I would even wager good money that most of them would agree with that.
The fact is, my goodness, I'm honestly stunned that anyone would even wish to argue about this. Are you sincerely not bothered by the photo of a sliced-up human baby?!? Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it could be a picture of a puppy, kitten or practically whatever sliced-up in like manner and I think I'd find myself bothered by it.

jes1994
June 2nd, 2002, 08:39 AM
DCY and ~AD~,

One quick thing... we've already got a thread discussing the use of the abortion pictures as avatars over in the fellowship section called "Avatar Contest".

Thanks,

Evangelion
June 2nd, 2002, 09:50 AM
Jes -


1) Abortion where development of the fetus is past the point of viability should be considered murder, and prosecuted as such under the legal system as murder, with the life of the mother exception.

Yes, that is my position. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the majority of US states prohibit abortion after the third trimester unless the mother's life is at risk. Am I correct?


2) Abortion before development reaches the point of viability should not be prosecuted as murder under the legal system.

Yes, that is my position.


Both of these statements seem to me like they are pretty straightforward conclusions coming from your original statement, along with the standard western societal definition of murder. Am I close enough with #1 and #2?

You are correct on both.

Now permit me to elaborate:

I would prefer it if abortions were illegal - without qualification.

Practically speaking, however, this is simply not possible. (Some women who have been raped would prefer to abort ASAP, for example.) People's individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. They should have the freedom of choice.

I therefore believe that people should be free to make up their own minds with regard to abortion before the third trimester.

Notwithstanding this, I believe that abortion after the third trimester should be illegal unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Evangelion
June 2nd, 2002, 10:00 AM
DCY -


All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thoght abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the alegedly false comparisons.

In that case, you don't have an argument.


Rather, as you only allude above, it was you expressing your position that abortion should be a choice left up to the individual.

*snip*

So what this really comes down to, is your own subjective definition of what constitutes a "person." This is precisely why it amounts to a false equivocation - because you are using a subjective definition instead of a universally accepted one.


Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

In what way is it "still outstanding"? Are you seriously asking if I believe that people should be free to decide if rape and murder are OK?

That, sir, is an insult to my intelligence and morals. I shall not dignify it with an answer.


That being so, what then is the ultimate point of contention?

I suggest you ask him. I certainly don't know.

*snip*


I cannot of course speak to your own personal situation

*snip*

No, you cannot. But I note with interest that this didn't stop you from implying it. :rolleyes:

I do not hold this position because I want to be "with it", nor do I hold it in deference to "social trends." In fact, my position is at odds with the current "social trends." It is quite conservative - though not as right-wing as yours.

*snip*


Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!?

I said "emotivism", not "overt emotionalism." You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy known as "The Argument From Pity." That is a classic case of emotivism.

jes1994
June 2nd, 2002, 12:11 PM
Evangelion,


Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the majoroty of US states prohibit abortion after the third trimester unless the mother's life is at risk. Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct on this. AFAIK, it's causing some problems because some doctors have "adjusted" their information downward and performed abortions that technically would have been illegal. Of course, that is more of a licensing/competence and truth in reporting type issue, but it would not be an issue if a state had pro-life laws in effect.


I would prefer it if abortions were illegal - without qualification.
But you have said that prior to viability, it should be a freedom of choice issue.


Practically speaking, however, this is simply not possible. (Some women who have been raped would prefer to abort ASAP, for example.) People's individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. They should have the freedom of choice.
This is generally called the "rape/incest exception" issue. There is also a "disabled child exception" issue. I'll discuss them if you wish, although I would rather postpone that part of a debate for later, or a separate thread. Besides, the last numbers I heard on those abortions were one percent for the rape/incest case, and three percent for the disabled child case, so from a percentage standpoint, we're talking relatively small numbers. Note that those percentages are from an old source.

Back to statements #1 and #2...

Statement one does beg the question of who to prosecute for murder. This is an issue, but for the purposes of our discussion here, I would prefer to focus on whether or not a victim exists.

What we are saying with statements one and two is that whether or not a victim exists is a function of viability of the fetus. A non-victim becomes a victim if they are viable. Since that victim/non-victim distinction is really a personhood distinction, we've turned our statements one and two into criteria statements for whether or not a fetus is a person.

Small detour for a second if I may...
We would be furious, and clamoring for legal changes if personhood was defined on the basis of gender. Rightly so. Same for skin color. And (aside from Enyart types) if the basis was sexual preference. Again, rightly so.
On the other hand, species of the victim/non-victim is pretty much a valid distinction. Hunting animals isn't a legal issue (PETA types excluded). Killing bacteria while washing dishes isn't a legal issue. Grown adult humans are a problem. So, species is a valid criteria for personhood.

Now, viability.

What does viability depend on? What is viability a function of?

The obvious first answer is biology... development level. But human biology is pretty stable... develop far enough along, and voila, personhood. Age becomes a criteria for personhood.

Viability is also a function of technology. At the turn of the last century (1900s) the technology was so primitive that viability was pretty much obtained at the end of gestation, approximately 38 weeks. Now, viability is at around 20 weeks.

So...

If we as a society extend personhood status to something based on viability, we end up with personhood status being a function of age and our technology level. Since our society does not believe that those two things are valid criteria for personhood, to be pro-choice is to say that personhood depends on a person's age and societal technology.

I do not think that our society should extend personhood status based on viability. I only see being a member of the human species as a valid criteria for personhood. That's why I am pro-life.

Thoughts, comments?

cirisme
June 2nd, 2002, 02:36 PM
I just now took a look at the commercial... all I can say is, wow!

Evangelion
June 3rd, 2002, 04:18 AM
Jes -


Yes, you are correct on this. AFAIK, it's causing some problems because some doctors have "adjusted" their information downward and performed abortions that technically would have been illegal. Of course, that is more of a licensing/competence and truth in reporting type issue, but it would not be an issue if a state had pro-life laws in effect.

Yes, I've heard of a few doctors trying to bend the rules. What are they usually charged with if they're caught performing an illegal procedure?


Quote:
I would prefer it if abortions were illegal - without qualification.


But you have said that prior to viability, it should be a freedom of choice issue.

Yes, that's correct. Again - in a perfect world, there would be no need for qualification. In our current world, I make my own choice on the issue, and encourage others to make their own. What I prefer, and what can be reasonably achieved, are two entirely different things. My position is a realistic one.


This is generally called the "rape/incest exception" issue. There is also a "disabled child exception" issue. I'll discuss them if you wish, although I would rather postpone that part of a debate for later, or a separate thread.

I'm happy to leave it out of this thread.


Besides, the last numbers I heard on those abortions were one percent for the rape/incest case, and three percent for the disabled child case, so from a percentage standpoint, we're talking relatively small numbers. Note that those percentages are from an old source.

Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.


Back to statements #1 and #2...

Statement one does beg the question of who to prosecute for murder. This is an issue, but for the purposes of our discussion here, I would prefer to focus on whether or not a victim exists.

Surely the legal terms "accomplice, 1st degree murder, & 2nd degree murder" would apply in this case?


What we are saying with statements one and two is that whether or not a victim exists is a function of viability of the fetus.

Yes, that is my position.


A non-victim becomes a victim if they are viable. Since that victim/non-victim distinction is really a personhood distinction, we've turned our statements one and two into criteria statements for whether or not a fetus is a person.

And necessarily so.


Small detour for a second if I may...
We would be furious, and clamoring for legal changes if personhood was defined on the basis of gender. Rightly so. Same for skin color. And (aside from Enyart types) if the basis was sexual preference. Again, rightly so.

Agreed.


On the other hand, species of the victim/non-victim is pretty much a valid distinction. Hunting animals isn't a legal issue (PETA types excluded). Killing bacteria while washing dishes isn't a legal issue. Grown adult humans are a problem. So, species is a valid criteria for personhood.

Agreed.


Now, viability.

What does viability depend on? What is viability a function of?

The obvious first answer is biology... development level. But human biology is pretty stable... develop far enough along, and voila, personhood. Age becomes a criteria for personhood.

Agreed.


Viability is also a function of technology. At the turn of the last century (1900s) the technology was so primitive that viability was pretty much obtained at the end of gestation, approximately 38 weeks. Now, viability is at around 20 weeks.

Actually, I believe it's not quite so specific as that. The viability of the fetus differs from case to case - sometimes beginning at the 20th week, sometimes the 24th. But only 40% of babies born at this stage will reach adulthood.


So...

If we as a society extend personhood status to something based on viability, we end up with personhood status being a function of age and our technology level.

...a function of biological development and our technology level, Jes. Viva la difference.


Since our society does not believe that those two things are valid criteria for personhood, to be pro-choice is to say that personhood depends on a person's age and societal technology.

No, that is not true. I argue that biological development (which is not the same as mere "age") is an essential factor. And is it reasonable to say that just because a fetus can be delivered alive at 24 weeks, it must therefore be treated as a person? Is it reasonable to say that a "person" can be induced to leave the womb (its natural place of residence at this early stage) prematurely, only to be placed on life support because it is incapable of independent existence? If you view this 24-week fetus as a "person", on what moral basis can you justify a decision to ...

Force it from the womb.

Place it on life support.

...instead of allowing it to develop properly, as God intended?


I do not think that our society should extend personhood status based on viability. I only see being a member of the human species as a valid criteria for personhood. That's why I am pro-life.

I understand your position, but I still maintain that mine is perfectly valid and consistent.

DavidCaroYates
June 3rd, 2002, 07:31 AM
Quote:
DCY: All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thought abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the allegedly false comparisons.

Ev: In that case, you don't have an argument.

DCY: What?!? Why would you interject at this point? It makes no sense! Before this turns ugly, let's all step back, take a deep breath and try to maintain some civility in this discussion. I know it's a controversial subject where emotions inevitably run high, but nonetheless surely we can still practise common courtesy with each other, can't we?

Quote:
DCY: Rather, as you only allude above, it was you expressing your position that abortion should be a choice left up to the individual.

Ev: So what this really comes down to, is your own subjective definition of what constitutes a "person." This is precisely why it amounts to a false equivocation - because you are using a subjective definition instead of a universally accepted one.

DCY: There IS NO "universally accepted" definition!! So yes, this IS what it "really comes down to." This is of course the crux of the whole issue: Does the foetus possess full personhood? Or, does the foetus become a person at some point during gestation, like at the point of viability (whenever THAT is?! It's different for every baby)? Or, is the foetus not at all a person until s/he has been fully delivered from the birth-canal?
I presume that we would virtually all agree that causing the deliberate death of another 'person' rightly warrants being deemed 'wrong' and that it's that that we should endeavour to avoid to the best of our ability. Correct?
However, you've rather arbitrarily dubbed the position to which I personally adhere--that the foetus attains personhood at the moment of conception--"subjective." But how is it that your position--that the foetus is not a person until the point of viability, or after the beginning of the third trimester--manages to escape this category? In point of fact, since this is the central issue that underlies the whole debate, your position is every bit as subjective as mine. Scientific knowledge (as if that's the only method for attaining truth that exists) provides no more support for your stand on this than it does mine. That being so, it only stands to reason that, since it in fact is so difficult to determine with any appreciable degree of certainty at just which point the foetus achieves verifiable personhood, and since causing the deliberate death of another 'person' is what constitutes a wrongful act, then we would do well to give the foetus the benefit of the doubt and refrain from deliberately acting so as to cause her or his death at all points of gestation.
Arbitrarily judging upon the status of 'personhood' is always a dangerous business. The Nazis did it to the Jews. The white slave-owners of the American South did it to the Blacks. Heck, it was only relatively recently that even the governments of the Western democracies declared that females possessed the status of 'persons'. I'm sure none of us would be very comfortable if our own status as 'persons' were left up to others to decide. Amidst all this uncertainty, one thing I am certain of is that none of us are really qualified to accurately determine at which point a foetus achieves that arbitrary status either. My prayer and prediction is that, just as those other moral evils were eventually by and large corrected, the powers that be will finally recognise this error and will then take measures to rectify the moral evil of abortion, also. And the sooner the better.

Quote:
DCY: Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

Ev: In what way is it "still outstanding"? Are you seriously asking if I believe that people should be free to decide if rape and murder are OK?
That, sir, is an insult to my intelligence and morals. I shall not dignify it with an answer.

DCY: Well, you're arguing that it should be okay to allow people to decide upon the murder of their unborn children! Why not also ask if you think it alright to rape and otherwise murder?!?

Quote:
DCY: I cannot of course speak to your own personal situation

Ev; No, you cannot. But I note with interest that this didn't stop you from implying it.

DCY: Well at least I had the courtesy to exclude you from my 'implication' if it didn't apply to you.

Ev: I do not hold this position because I want to be "with it", nor do I hold it in deference to "social trends." In fact, my position is at odds with the current "social trends." It is quite conservative - though not as right-wing as yours.

DCY: I agree. And this is why I asked why you evidently thought it necessary to in effect direct your opposition in the direction of those with whom you would ostensibly be in large agreement. Both Jes and I have already conceded that we would consider abortion a viable option in those rare instances where the mother's life was in genuine jeopardy should she carry her pregnancy to term, and yet you're reserving your obloquies exclusively for us! What gives, man?

Quote:
DCY: Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!?

Ev: I said "emotivism", not "overt emotionalism." You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy known as "The Argument From Pity." That is a classic case of emotivism.

DCY: And this is called a 'distinction without a difference'. And it's not called an 'argument from pity', it's called an 'appeal to pity'. And furthermore, that is not what I was doing when you accused me of emotivism. I'll admit, this could have been legitimately construed when I was referring to the photo of the sliced-up baby but, for goodness' sake, it WAS A PHOTO OF A SLICED-UP BABY!!! My gosh, when it comes to an image of a sliced-up baby, pity should NOT have to have been elicited by me. I'm frankly astonished that such a picture couldn't have done that by itself. It just goes to show how far into barbarism we've descended over these past few decades. (And no, this last comment was not directed at you, Ev. You're excluded from it.)

DavidCaroYates
June 3rd, 2002, 09:09 AM
Jes: the last numbers I heard on those abortions were one percent for the rape/incest case, and three percent for the disabled child case, so from a percentage standpoint, we're talking relatively small numbers. Note that those percentages are from an old source.

(DCY: Indeed, Jes, the figures I saw recently were much lower--but they were in a Canadian magazine and I'm not sure if they covered all of N. America or just Canada. Nevertheless, it only makes sense. First of all, it is extremely rare that rape results in pregnancy. Not only would a woman have to be extremely unlucky to have been raped during those few days each month in which she is ovulating, but even so, pregnancy rarely results due to the trauma involved. And incest numbers are now known to have been notoriously exaggerated in the past [as were the rape numbers, for that matter]. More recent statistics show that instances of true incest are also extremely rare. By far the majority of 'incest' cases are actually a situation of a young girl being molested by her mother's live-in boyfriend or, even less often than that, a step-father, and so, does not really constitute incest.)

Ev: Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

DCY: My goodness, Ev, your parameters are stretching past the breaking point. What happened to the "only where a mother's life is in danger" criterion? And why the hell is adoption never brought in as a viable alternative in a situation like this? I would really like to see some statistics on the percentage of adoptees who would rather have been aborted than adopted.
As far as the "young girls getting pregnant" argument is concerned, I'm sorry, but it hits a little too close to home for me. My own mother was only fifteen and my father sixteen when she got pregnant with me. By this criterion I might not be here right now. I can assure you though that both my parents are awfully glad they had me. On the other hand, my brother got his girlfriend
pregnant a few years back--and both were older than my parents were at my conception--but opted to abort, and both are now profoundly regretful of it--to the point of tears and self-denigration at the mere thought of what they have done.

..........................
Jes: Now, viability is at around 20 weeks.

Ev: Actually, I believe it's not quite so specific as that. The viability of the fetus differs from case to case - sometimes beginning at the 20th week, sometimes the 24th.

DCY: You admit this criterion can be inaccurate up to a full month and you're still willing to risk that a viable baby's existence, and therefore a person's life, could still be determined by the whim of a young girl? Do you honestly have no qualms in advocating the legal right of one person to legitimately decide whether or not the life of another should be allowed to continue?

Ev: But only 40% of babies born at this stage will reach adulthood.

DCY: But Ev, that's still a pretty high percentage, all things considered. Heck, given the decision between life and death, I'd take those odds. Wouldn't you?

Jes: Since our society does not believe that those two things are valid criteria for personhood, to be pro-choice is to say that personhood depends on a person's age and societal technology.

Ev: No, that is not true. I argue that biological development (which is not the same as mere "age") is an essential factor.

DCY: Indeed, biological development is much more arbitrary than is age. Age can measured with great accuracy. Biological development, on the other hand, cannot--especially when it comes to a foetus. Heck, our own OB-Gyn was, at one point way off in determining the 'development' of our second baby. And I've heard of several instances where an attending physician made all sorts of misdiagnoses. One, using ultrasound, declared a couple's unborn a girl when it later turned out to be a boy (and vice versa). There are also numerous instances in which a doctor determined a yet-to-be born child to be hopelessly retarded or physically-handicapped, and have even gone so far as to strenuously recommend termination of the pregnancy, but was later proved 100% wrong.
No Ev, as you've already condeded, this is far from an exact science, which is why we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt.

Ev: And is it reasonable to say that just because a fetus can be delivered alive at 24 weeks, it must therefore be treated as a person? Is it reasonable to say that a "person" can be induced to leave the womb (its natural place of residence at this early stage) prematurely, only to be placed on life support because it is incapable of independent existence?

DCY: If it comes down to the life or death of the child, yes.

Ev: If you view this 24-week fetus as a "person", on what moral basis can you justify a decision to ...

--Force it from the womb.

--Place it on life support.

...instead of allowing it to develop properly, as God intended?

DCY: Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Why even bring this into the conversation, Ev? And, besides that, why wouldn't we use the technology that is available to us and thereby attempt to save the baby's life if it was otherwise in danger?

Jes: I do not think that our society should extend personhood status based on viability. I only see being a member of the human species as a valid criteria for personhood. That's why I am pro-life.

Ev: I understand your position, but I still maintain that mine is perfectly valid and consistent.

DCY: Well, this is really the overarching point of the discussion, isn't it? Naturally you see your own position as "perfectly valid and consistent." Just as Jes does his and I do mine; otherwise we wouldn't be making them. It is really here where the disagreement that is the basis of the whole conversation lies.
However...
Not that you'll miss me. I'm sure, but this is as good as time as any to announce that I'm bowing out of this particular discussion. I really enjoyed it, but it's simply taking up too much of my very limited time. I came to this site to discuss more theological matters of a biblical-exegetical turn, not moral issues. So, farewell and God bless. (Jes is doing a better job than I could in arguing for the pro-life position anyway.) Thanks, all.

o2bwise
June 3rd, 2002, 11:03 AM
Ev: Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

Then, where is faith, Evan.

Remember the widow of Zerephath!

Evangelion
June 3rd, 2002, 11:44 AM
DCY - I'll address your latest series of posts tomorrow, when I've arrived home from work.

jes1994
June 3rd, 2002, 01:34 PM
Evangelion,


Yes, I've heard of a few doctors trying to bend the rules. What are they usually charged with if they're caught performing an illegal procedure?
I think the laws used in the cases say something along the lines of "performing an illegal abortion". But I am not sure. It would likely vary from state to state.



Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.
There's one more option you did not list... give the baby up for adoption. But this is the rape exception, and I'd rather put it on hold until we've discussed some of the other issues.



Surely the legal terms "accomplice, 1st degree murder, & 2nd degree murder" would apply in this case?
The difference between first and second degree murder is premeditation. Since We're talking about thinking through and performing a medical procedure, that seems pretty well premeditated in my book. In a nutshell, I would prosecute the doctor along the lines of a murderer. The patient would get counted as an accomplice, and prosecuting as such would be an option. When looking at grown up situations, the decision to prosecute an accomplice is usually made along the lines of this: if the accomplice assists in prosecuting the murderer, the charges/sentence are reduced or dropped. If the accomplice does not assist, then they are charged but not handled as severely as the murderer.

For the purposes of abortion, I would be happy to have the law grant full immunity to the patient and just prosecute the doctor for a crime along the lines of murder.



In our current world, I make my own choice on the issue...
Would your choice be to prosecute the doctor performing an abortion as a murderer?

If yes, then you and I are in agreement. Such a position in the US is generally not known as a pro-choice position. I just misunderstood your terms.

If no, then I'd like to further address the points from your previous post in my next one.



I understand your position, but I still maintain that mine is perfectly valid and consistent.
Understood. I'm glad we're having this discussion.

Zakath
June 3rd, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise
Then, where is faith, Evan.

Remember the widow of Zerephath!

A mythical story, set thousands of years ago? Unfortunately we have to live in the real world today where prophets don't show up to miraculously deliver children from starvation. Remember the tragic case of little Samuel Ribidoux? Where were all the prophets when little Samuel was starved to death in the name of God?
See: http://www.boston.com/dailynews/153/region/Murder_trial_begins_for_religi:.shtml

Then, where is "faith", o2bwise?

me again
June 3rd, 2002, 02:01 PM
Zak! Is Back!

I thought you left?

jes1994
June 3rd, 2002, 02:08 PM
Zakath,

Welcome back. It's good to see you again.

jes1994
June 3rd, 2002, 02:15 PM
DCY,

First, the equivocation I made was a false equivocation. I made it, I should not have. I should have come right out with the statement that the false equivocation point ended up at. When I made the statement as I should have made it in the first place, Evangelion and I agreed on the statement. Please drop the issue.

Second, about using pictures of aborted babies as avatars... I oppose it. If you support it, then please look here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=68252#post68252) and address my points, or start a new thread.

Thank you,

Projill
June 3rd, 2002, 02:15 PM
*starts jumping up and down* Zakath's back! Zakath's back!!

*runs off to buy the beer* :D :D

Welcome back! :)

Zakath
June 3rd, 2002, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by me again
Zak! Is Back!

I thought you left?
Yup. If I never left, then I couldn't be back now, could I?
;)


Originally posted by jes1994
Zakath,

Welcome back. It's good to see you again.
Thanks :) and I'll be checking things out from time to time, not at my old posting frequency. Work is just too hectic...


Originally posted by Projill
*starts jumping up and down* Zakath's back! Zakath's back!!

*runs off to buy the beer*

Welcome back!
Thanks Jill. :)
If you jump up and down too much, you'll shake up the beer! :(
How are things? Still keeping the denizens of TOL in line? :)

me again
June 3rd, 2002, 03:25 PM
You made a grand return, just like when you made a grand exit! :D

Projill
June 3rd, 2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Thanks Jill. :)
If you jump up and down too much, you'll shake up the beer! :(

Whoops! Sorry! *sheepish grin*


How are things? Still keeping the denizens of TOL in line? :)

Quite well. I did well on my finals and everything and I've started taking my place amongst the other avowed skeptics on here...though I still have quite a bit to learn.

Other than some minor clashes with Knight seeing as how we're both hot-headed and argumentative, everything has been smooth sailing. Just glad you're back to lend your well-reasoned voice on occassion. :)

Atheist_Divine
June 3rd, 2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by DavidCaroYates
DCY: Of course this is POSSIBLE, A-D, but surely it is not DESIRABLE--especially where horribly murdered, defenseless babies are concerned. Shouldn't this 'de-sensitisation' to which you refer be guarded against? And, in point of fact, to the degree to which soldiers and journalists and the like are genuinely de-sensitised to such images, I think they do lose a bit of their humanity--and I would even wager good money that most of them would agree with that.

I would not wish to deny anyone's humanity, for any reason. It is a dangerous precedent. If a person is no longer to be regarded as human, what is to stop us killing that person?


The fact is, my goodness, I'm honestly stunned that anyone would even wish to argue about this. Are you sincerely not bothered by the photo of a sliced-up human baby?!? Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it could be a picture of a puppy, kitten or practically whatever sliced-up in like manner and I think I'd find myself bothered by it.

No, I'm not bothered by it. I have seen too many pictures used as propaganda for right-wing Christians to pay much attention to them. Pictures of sliced up animals do not bother me anymore than seeing a dead chicken does - they're just dead things. I've seen dead people before - they're just dead. Now, pictures of living people in pain or danger, those do upset me, but there is little point agonising over those already dead.

~AD~

Brother Vinny
June 4th, 2002, 07:41 AM
Zakath,

Hey, good to see you again. You left just prior to my return, so I was sorry to have missed you.

I know this is off the subject, Zak, but does your return imply that you've figured out a hypothetical situation in which it would be morally acceptable to rape a nine-year-old? From what I've read, this question was still dangling when you departed.

If you wish to answer this, I'd ask that you start another thread.

If you don't wish to answer this, I'll completely understand.:D

Jefferson
June 4th, 2002, 10:21 AM
Zakath asked Projill:


How are things? Still keeping the denizens of TOL in line?

Projill replied:


Quite well.
Oh, please. Zakath, Projill has been dodging my questions to her on this thread . . .
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I29F52DF for over 5 months. She's not holding up. She's barely hanging on.

Evangelion
June 4th, 2002, 10:56 AM
DCY -


Quote:
DCY: All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thought abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the allegedly false comparisons.

Ev: In that case, you don't have an argument.

DCY: What?!? Why would you interject at this point? It makes no sense! Before this turns ugly, let's all step back, take a deep breath and try to maintain some civility in this discussion. I know it's a controversial subject where emotions inevitably run high, but nonetheless surely we can still practise common courtesy with each other, can't we?

Sure. I don't have a problem with that - and I'm perfectly calm, in case you were wondering. I'm simply pointing out that you have no argument. If anything, this is a courtesy that I'm extending to you!


DCY: There IS NO "universally accepted" definition!!

*snip*

Strictly speaking, no. Practically speaking, yes - the medical definition.

I have already made my position clear on this subject.


However, you've rather arbitrarily dubbed the position to which I personally adhere--that the foetus attains personhood at the moment of conception--"subjective."

Of course it's subjective. If I place three adults in a room, along with a small petri dish containing the mass of cells which constitute a fertilised egg, and then invite someone into that room and ask them to tell me how many "persons" they can see, I think we both know that the answer would be based on the number of adults in the room.

The petri dish (which I would leave unlabelled, so as not to influence the judgement of the person I had invited into the room) would most likely be ignored.


But how is it that your position--that the foetus is not a person until the point of viability, or after the beginning of the third trimester--manages to escape this category?

Because until the foetus is fully developed, we don't literally have a person. At the very most, I could say that we have a partially developed person. But that's about all.


In point of fact, since this is the central issue that underlies the whole debate, your position is every bit as subjective as mine.

*snip*

That is demonstrably false.

*snip*


Arbitrarily judging upon the status of 'personhood' is always a dangerous business.

Very true. And in light of this fact, I would advise you to consider your position very carefully.


Quote:
DCY: Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

Ev: In what way is it "still outstanding"? Are you seriously asking if I believe that people should be free to decide if rape and murder are OK?
That, sir, is an insult to my intelligence and morals. I shall not dignify it with an answer.

DCY: Well, you're arguing that it should be okay to allow people to decide upon the murder of their unborn children! Why not also ask if you think it alright to rape and otherwise murder?!?

No matter how much emotion you bring into this debate, you are still presenting a false equivocation, and nothing in the world can change that fact. Since I note with interest that Jes1994 has agreed with me on this point, I see no reason to repeat my previous argument with you.

*snip*


DCY: Well at least I had the courtesy to exclude you from my 'implication' if it didn't apply to you.

No, I'm not entirely convinced that you did. Otherwise, why bring it up in the first place?

*snip*


Both Jes and I have already conceded that we would consider abortion a viable option in those rare instances where the mother's life was in genuine jeopardy should she carry her pregnancy to term

...as did I. So what's your point?


and yet you're reserving your obloquies exclusively for us! What gives, man?

I have not "reserved" any "obliquies" for either of you, as an objective review of this thread will show.


Quote:
DCY: Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!?

Ev: I said "emotivism", not "overt emotionalism." You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy known as "The Argument From Pity." That is a classic case of emotivism.

DCY: And this is called a 'distinction without a difference'.

Emotivism does not equate to "overt emotionalism." Emotivism is in fact a philosophical term. Read David Hume.


And it's not called an 'argument from pity', it's called an 'appeal to pity'.

Mea culpa. I stand corrected, but my point remains.


And furthermore, that is not what I was doing when you accused me of emotivism.

You clearly did, as an objective review of this thread will show.


I'll admit, this could have been legitimately construed when I was referring to the photo of the sliced-up baby

*snip*

...and it could also be legitimately construed from the comments to which I took exception. Which it was.


Ev: Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

DCY: My goodness, Ev, your parameters are stretching past the breaking point.

Really? Do tell...


What happened to the "only where a mother's life is in danger" criterion?

I still stand by it. Your problem here is that you're reading my hypotheticals as if they constitute my actual position. Think again.


And why the hell is adoption never brought in as a viable alternative in a situation like this?

Because I am talking about a case where adoption has already been ruled out by the mother. Wasn't it obvious?

*snip*


As far as the "young girls getting pregnant" argument is concerned, I'm sorry, but it hits a little too close to home for me. My own mother was only fifteen and my father sixteen when she got pregnant with me.

*snip*

OK, so you got lucky. Many don't. Either way, the choice is still in the hands of the mother.

*snip*


DCY: You admit this criterion can be inaccurate up to a full month

No, that's not what I wrote. What I am saying here is that because the speed of development varies from foetus to foetus, some foetuses will be viable at an earlier stage than others.

Once again you've totally missed the point, and jumped in with another emotive attack. This is ridiculous. Your arguments are rife with intellectual dishonesty.


and you're still willing to risk that a viable baby's existence, and therefore a person's life, could still be determined by the whim of a young girl?

*snip*

You seem to believe that a 20-24-week-old baby is "viable" in the sense of being ready for birth. Allow me to point out that this is simply not true.

The baby is only viable at this point if the doctors take the radical step of invading the womb and removing the foetus. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Take the foetus out of the womb just because you can, and hope that it somehow manages to survive? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, DCY.

Remember - even after this is done, the foetus must be maintained on life support, as it is physically incapable of independent life at this stage of development - and even if the foetus does survive removal from the womb, it only has a 40% chance of reaching adulthood. Do those sound like good odds to you, DCY? I can tell you right now that they sure sound pretty lousy to me.

If the foetus was properly viable (i.e. capable of being born in the usual manner) at 20-24 weeks, your argument would stand. But it isn't, so your argument has no support from the plain, cold, hard facts of life - and these are the facts which matter.


Ev: But only 40% of babies born at this stage will reach adulthood.

DCY: But Ev, that's still a pretty high percentage, all things considered. Heck, given the decision between life and death, I'd take those odds. Wouldn't you?

Of course I would - but the point I am making here is that others wouldn't, and they should be allowed to make that choice. After all, your country doesn't even have a proper national health care system. How many teenage girls have enough money to keep a foetus on life support for an indefinite period of time? Would you care to step outside your personal comfort zone, and consider - just for a moment - the fact that many people in this world don't enjoy the same benefits and privileges that you do?

*snip*


Ev: No, that is not true. I argue that biological development (which is not the same as mere "age") is an essential factor.

DCY: Indeed, biological development is much more arbitrary than is age.

Oh, really? That's a fascinating assertion. I would be interested to know how you might go about proving it.


Age can measured with great accuracy. Biological development, on the other hand, cannot--especially when it comes to a foetus.

*snip*

So I can safely ignore all those pro-life Websites which confidently assure me that a 10-week-old foetus has such-and-such features, while a fifteen-week-old foetus has developed to such-and-such a point, etc., etc.? Is that what you're saying?


No Ev, as you've already condeded

*snip*

Straw man. I have "conceded" no such thing, and I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth., this is far from an exact science, which is why we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt.

*snip*


Ev: If you view this 24-week fetus as a "person", on what moral basis can you justify a decision to ...

--Force it from the womb.

--Place it on life support.

...instead of allowing it to develop properly, as God intended?

DCY: Excuse me, but what are you talking about?

I am talking about a decision which you told me you would make.


Why even bring this into the conversation, Ev?

Because when you wrote this...

DCY: If it comes down to the life or death of the child, yes.

...I thought you were serious. But now you're having second thoughts?


And, besides that, why wouldn't we use the technology that is available to us

*snip*

Irrelevant. I never argued that we shouldn't use the technology that is available to us in this situation. I was debating the morality of the situation itself.

Gerald
June 4th, 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Evangelion
If my wife and baby were dying, and it was clear that intervention could save at least one of them, I would choose to save my wife.


I'd be interested to see if anyone here would choose the other option: saving the baby rather than the mother.

Anyone? Anyone at all...?

NSMinistries
June 4th, 2002, 11:24 AM
I'd be interested to see if anyone here would choose the other option: saving the baby rather than the mother.



My wife and I have discussed it when we first were married, we would opt for the Baby. Its not easy to decide that but we both felt it was the right thing to do.

Evangelion
June 4th, 2002, 11:32 AM
Jes -


There's one more option you did not list... give the baby up for adoption.

That's because I wasn't talking about the available options - I'm talking about the rationale which drives a girl who has already decided that she doesn't want to give birth. I wanted to leave the "options" question to one side for a moment, because the first issue we have to look at is "What is the rationale that drives a decision to abort?" Many girls would say to themselves "Well, if I don't want the child in the first place, why wait until it arrives and give it away? Why not just terminate it now?"

You can see for yourself that raw pragmatism is the driving force behind this mentality - and it does make sense, even though I find it repugnant.


But this is the rape exception, and I'd rather put it on hold until we've discussed some of the other issues.

Sure. I would also like to address the "substance abuse/addition" and "cultural stigma" exceptions at some point.


The difference between first and second degree murder is premeditation. Since We're talking about thinking through and performing a medical procedure, that seems pretty well premeditated in my book.

Agreed. The interesting thing here is that the doctor won't perform the act unless the mother gives consent. She has to come to him with the idea first, and then the procedure will go ahead.


In a nutshell, I would prosecute the doctor along the lines of a murderer. The patient would get counted as an accomplice, and prosecuting as such would be an option.

I find this morally inadequate, because the abortion was the mother's idea, and she gave consent to the murder of the child, which would not have happened otherwise - but I admit that I can't fault it legally. It's just that I would prefer to see the blame distributed in two equal shares.


When looking at grown up situations, the decision to prosecute an accomplice is usually made along the lines of this: if the accomplice assists in prosecuting the murderer, the charges/sentence are reduced or dropped. If the accomplice does not assist, then they are charged but not handled as severely as the murderer.

For the purposes of abortion, I would be happy to have the law grant full immunity to the patient and just prosecute the doctor for a crime along the lines of murder.

Again, I find this morally inadequate. In fact, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the mother should not be held responsible for the death of the foetus - which means that you have now successfully demolished the pro-life position.

That's a problem, and you'll need to address it at some stage.


Quote:
In our current world, I make my own choice on the issue...

Would your choice be to prosecute the doctor performing an abortion as a murderer?

In the third trimester? Yes. And I would want to see the mother prosecuted with an equal share of the blame.


If yes, then you and I are in agreement.

I think that my qualification will bring us back into disagreement. ;) But for the most part, we do appear to have a consensus.


Such a position in the US is generally not known as a pro-choice position. I just misunderstood your terms.

That's OK. You have to realise that the abortion issue doesn't get the same amount of attention in Australia that it does in the USA. It's not the be-all and end-all of Australian politics.

It's one of many (equally significant) political issues in Australia, and it's treated with equal dignity.

Gerald
June 4th, 2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by NSMinistries
My wife and I have discussed it when we first were married, we would opt for the Baby. Its not easy to decide that but we both felt it was the right thing to do.

Interesting! To be honest, I hadn't expected anyone to bite at that question.

So, what's your rationale for that decision?

Zakath
June 4th, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
Zakath,

Hey, good to see you again. You left just prior to my return, so I was sorry to have missed you.

You mean your return "from the dead"? ;)


I know this is off the subject, Zak,Then why bring it up here, other than to stir up trouble?;)


... but does your return imply that you've figured out a hypothetical situation in which it would be morally acceptable to rape a nine-year-old? From what I've read, this question was still dangling when you departed.Not really, my return implies nothing more than a casual interest in some of the topics discussed.


If you wish to answer this, I'd ask that you start another thread.

If you don't wish to answer this, I'll completely understand.:D
Certainly I'll answer it. Since my answer is brief, I'll answer it here. I am not a philosopher, nor a theologian, so my answer is simply "No." I don't spend my time contemplating the intricacies of how to condone child rape, apparently unlike a number of the folks here... :(

In keeping with your line of questioning, perhaps you could tell me whether or not you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?

Zakath
June 4th, 2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Jefferson
Zakath asked Projill:


Oh, please. Zakath, Projill has been dodging my questions to her on this thread . . .
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I29F52DF for over 5 months. She's not holding up. She's barely hanging on.

As a Jewish rabbi once said, "Let he who is without sin...".

Perhaps you'd care to take a stab at answering the simple question I just posed to Mr. DeYonghe?

Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?

NSMinistries
June 4th, 2002, 12:16 PM
My wife thinks that she has lived enough of her life that a child would need the chance to go ahead and do the same. Myself it would be hard, but thats what she wants and I have to beleive if God wanted her to die by letting the baby live than its the way its going to be. But the Dr. better do everything he/she can to save both.

jes1994
June 4th, 2002, 02:45 PM
Evangelion,


You can see for yourself that raw pragmatism is the driving force behind this mentality - and it does make sense, even though I find it repugnant.
I do see that, and us on the pro-life side of the issue may be looking at the issue with a bit more idealism and less pragmatism, but we're not totally empty on pragmatism. On the pragmatic side, we see unwanted pregnancies occurring because abortion seems to be getting used as just another method of birth control. And abortion being just another method of birth control does make sense if personhood of the fetus prior to viability is a personal choice, rather than a societally imposed one.

On the pro-life side, we feel that if abortion were made illegal, then people would be more likely to recognize that their actions (intercourse) had consequences (pregnancy), and then choose their actions based on those consequences. That would then bring down the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and if it were still a problem, we could handle things at that point in some other manner that did not involve an action that we consider to be murder. We on the pro-life side feel that working to keep abortion legal while simultaneously working to reduce unwanted pregnancies is feeding a repeating cycle, and the only way we see to end that cycle is to make abortion illegal.



I would also like to address the "substance abuse/addition" and "cultural stigma" exceptions at some point.
*Jes scratches his head*

Sure. What are those exceptions? May I get a preview?



Again, I find this morally inadequate. In fact, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the mother should not be held responsible for the death of the foetus - which means that you have now successfully demolished the pro-life position.
That's a problem, and you'll need to address it at some stage.
You are correct on this, and this may be a bit of my personal bias on who to punish coming into play, possibly due to my being from the US. One of the things we try to do over here when we look at a problem and attempt to address it through the legal system is to punish as few people as possible in order to solve that problem. As an example, when we looked at our drug problem and were considering how to address it, our first focus was to punish the dealers rather than the users, partly because there generally are fewer dealers than users (or at least, that idea made sense). Also, a decision to become a dealer (traditionally) involves a larger investment of resources than a decision to become a user. And that may be a poor comparison to abortion, but does that illustrate my principle to you?

Anyway, on abortion: I am open to options either way on whether or not to punish the woman. One of the points that pro-choice people make is that a woman who has been through an abortion has already been punished because of the trauma of the abortion procedure. Another thing to keep in mind is that the doctor generally has invested time in learning how to perform the abortion, and money in buying equipment for the procedure, whereas the time of the patient has been invested in, shall we say, other pursuits. (When I say that, remember that we're putting off the rape exception until we handle the general case)

However, all the points you make on who to punish are 100% correct. If a law we write ends up punishing both doctor and patient, that's fine with me.

The pro-life argument does have to make the case for personhood of the fetus at conception before any other points can be addressed. If we pro-lifers cannot do that, then politically speaking, all our other points are moot. I think that's part of the reason that pro-lifers use those bloody pictures so much in discussion... we/they focus on that one point to the exclusion of all others.



I think that my qualification will bring us back into disagreement. ;)
Yup. ;) I'll split this to a separate post.



That's OK. You have to realise that the abortion issue doesn't get the same amount of attention in Australia that it does in the USA. It's not the be-all and end-all of Australian politics.

It's one of many (equally significant) political issues in Australia, and it's treated with equal dignity.
It's not the be-all of my personal politics either. Up until about two years, I was pro-choice, and for the exact same reasons that you are... viability. I then read ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments by Randy Alcorn. In it he brought up the viability issue and handled it for me, in a manner similar to what I presented to you in that longer post on page five of this thread.

He also handled all the arguments in a non-biblical manner. He did touch on the Bible in the book, but he did not base his arguments on the Bible. That made a significant point to me, because no matter how I feel about the Bible, I do feel that one of the central tenets of western civilization is that if we as Christians keep our Bible out of political discussions, we gain the benefit of knowing that we get access to the Bible in our private discussions.

I do agree with you that pro-life vs. pro-choice discussions in the USA do tend to turn into shouting matches going across picket lines more often than they should, and that does cause me concern. That's also part of the reason I spoke up now on the issue. Maybe I can bring a bit of dignity from the pro-life side of the house to the ongoing discussion of the issue here on TOL. I hope I do.

4 A.M. Prayer
June 4th, 2002, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Projill
Just glad you're back to lend your well-reasoned voice on occassion. :)

I too am glad to see Zak's return; a keen mind and wit; he was the first here at TOL to send me a personal welcome and message back in 2000 when I first came on board; the little things mean a lot.
But to put things in context, Zak's slant on the Christian faith has been, in large part, shaped from his past experience in a flawed Pentecostal movement he was involved in, I believe, as a pastor, not to mention the "sicko" here at TOL who actually threatened Zak's family some time ago if I'm understanding things correctly so let's keep his critiques in perspective as our opinions are certainly all shaped by experience.

Knight
June 4th, 2002, 03:53 PM
Projill writes...
Quite well. I did well on my finals and everything and I've started taking my place amongst the other avowed skeptics on here...though I still have quite a bit to learn.Come on Projill, don't sell yourself short! Your as good as any of the "skeptics" at running from the issues, ignoring responses and dodging questions! :D

jes1994
June 4th, 2002, 03:59 PM
Evangelion,

First, I do need to put forth a few assumptions:
1) If person A intentionally kills person B, then person A should be charged with murder. That comes from the definition of person (personhood).

2) For the purposes of #1, an adult human is a person.

3) For the purposes of #1, an egg and a sperm side by side, not yet united, is not a person.

4) Somewhere between #2 and #3, personhood is obtained.

Are all those fair enough assumptions based on the standards we agree on for western civilization?

I'm going to assume yes, and continue (instead of waiting for a response and splitting to a separate post).

The transition between #2 and #3 is a fairly well documented transition. There could be several points at which personhood is obtained. Conception and viability are two of those, and the ones to consider here since they are the two we have discussed.

If we place the point of personhood at conception, then we are saying that personhood is obtained solely based on being a member of the human race. That's when the sperm's chromosomes combine with the egg's chromosomes to become the chromosomes of the human genome. That's the point that I claim, the point that makes the most sense to me.

On the other hand, if we say viability is the point, we are saying that personhood status depends on something other than the human genome. We're saying personhood depends on development level. I think that idea runs counter to the ideals of western civilization. Could someone lose personhood if they developed incorrectly? Could they develop past the point of personhood?

Part of the measure of our civilization is that we extend personhood status where it may not have previously been extended. When we extended personhood based on skin color, that was an advancement. When we extended personhood status based on gender, that was another advancement. And so on.

We on the pro-life side see removing personhood from someone based on development level as an action that does a severe detriment to our civilization.

Thoughts, comments?

NSMinistries
June 4th, 2002, 04:09 PM
Day 1 Conception (Websters Med. def.) the beginning of pregnacy
1 week attaches to wall of womb
2 weeks stops mothers menstrual period
3 weeks heart is beating
6 weeks brain waves measurable move and responds to touvh
8 weeks feels pain sucks thumb grasps swims
2 1/2 months body completly formed even fingerprints
3 months all organ systems funtioning
after 3 months nothing new develops -There is only growth in size and maturity

Makes ya wonder when its human (sarcastic statement)

Atheist_Divine
June 4th, 2002, 06:42 PM
NSMinistries,
Define "human".

Zakath
June 4th, 2002, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by jes1994
We on the pro-life side see removing personhood from someone based on development level as an action that does a severe detriment to our civilization.

Thoughts, comments?

Thanks for a clear presentation of your position, jes1994.

I have a question for your consideration, if you're interested in a "real world" situation.

I am told by cellular biologists of my aquaintance that they now have the capability, in laboratory situations, to take an unfertilized human egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult (dipliod) cell. The egg is not "fertilized" in the traditional sense but doesn't seem to care and begins dividing merrily away. Unfortunately, if the nucleus is taken from fully differentiated tissue (muscle, nerve, bone, etc.) then the result of the cell division will tend to produce tissue of that type rather than a complete human being.

I would assume, based on your writing, that you would "extend personhood" to any collection of diploid cells (cells with full sets of human chromosomes) capable of developing into an adult human whether those cells actually develop that way or not. In a sense, your guideline would extend personhood to what amounts to a tissue culture.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, where would you draw the line?

jes1994
June 4th, 2002, 08:37 PM
Zakath,


Thanks for a clear presentation of your position, jes1994.
Coming from you, I take that as quite a compliment. Thank you.


I have a question for your consideration, if you're interested in a "real world" situation.
Sure. One of the reasons I'm here at TOL is to learn.


In a sense, your guideline would extend personhood to what amounts to a tissue culture.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, where would you draw the line?
That is a fair assessment, at least of what I have posted up to this point anyway.

What I would suggest for this situation is to work with the cellular biologists to establish workable criteria for saying that a particular cell culture had grown into a piece of ordinary human tissue. Something along the lines of 'this cell culture is one centimeter, and appears to be a piece of ordinary human tissue that will not grow into a person'. Maybe use time instead of length. Maybe some kind of test could be developed.

Anyway, then we say that once our cell culture has grown to a given length, we do or do not have personhood. Until that the cell culture in question has grown to the given length, we do have to treat a collection of diploid cells as a person, and need extraordinary justification for taking action that will end that person's life.

I do have to say that this is a very interesting situation. I did not know about it. Thank you.

Jefferson
June 4th, 2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?
Of course.

NSMinistries
June 5th, 2002, 06:49 AM
any being that has the ability to become self aware. Including those that have medical problems that make it hard for them to be self aware (mental and physical defects that if were not present would allow a standard life.)

Elena Marie
June 5th, 2002, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Gerald


I'd be interested to see if anyone here would choose the other option: saving the baby rather than the mother.

Anyone? Anyone at all...?

Hi Gerald--

During my second pregnancy, I chose to take medication to delay labor and delivery that could have caused serious complications for me, including sudden intracranial hemmorhage and other side effects in addition to continuous vomiting and other less serious but very unpleasant effects. I made this choice in order to save my child, and I made it very plain to my physician that the child's life took precedence over my own. Of course he protested, but I was serious and remained serious until the end of the pregnancy. So yes, I made that choice and would make it again if need be.

Elena Marie
June 5th, 2002, 08:50 AM
Great ad. :)

Elena Marie
June 5th, 2002, 08:53 AM
Just an aside--A piece I composed on this topic for an advanced writing course may be viewed here (http://www.web-musings.com/writing/nonfiction/swimmingupstreamaroundthedrain.html)

Zakath
June 5th, 2002, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Jefferson

Of course.

Upon what do you base your belief that killing an unborn child is absolutely wrong?

Elena Marie
June 5th, 2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

I am told by cellular biologists of my aquaintance that they now have the capability, in laboratory situations, to take an unfertilized human egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult (dipliod) cell. The egg is not "fertilized" in the traditional sense but doesn't seem to care and begins dividing merrily away. Unfortunately, if the nucleus is taken from fully differentiated tissue (muscle, nerve, bone, etc.) then the result of the cell division will tend to produce tissue of that type rather than a complete human being.

I would assume, based on your writing, that you would "extend personhood" to any collection of diploid cells (cells with full sets of human chromosomes) capable of developing into an adult human whether those cells actually develop that way or not. In a sense, your guideline would extend personhood to what amounts to a tissue culture.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, where would you draw the line?

Hi Zakath--

Nice to see you back! :)

The technological advances in biology are going to present us with more and more situations wherein we are going to have to examine our definitions of personhood.

If I recall correctly, the issue of human tissue (poetry! ;) ) has been addressed in at least one religious aspect. Judiasm requires the burial of all human tissue, preferably with the origin of the tissue, because that tissue is human by virtue of its nature. So, in a sense, yes that tissue possesses personhood.

Now, does that mean that it is a sentient being? I don't know that we can extend that definition to it, but what about clones? Do clones possess personhood?

Forgive me for delving into popular film for a moment, but when I took my daughter to see "Attack of the Clones" I was once again struck by this issue. The clones in the movie were genetically altered to perform a specific task. Does that alteration negate their personhood? I don't think we have nearly as much to worry about in "The Sum of All Fears" as we do in "Attack of the Clones." A nuclear bomb would hurt us badly, but the loss of our shared humanity would destroy us.

I tried to get a thread on this topic going way back on the original ToL board but didn't have any takers. :(

Evangelion
June 5th, 2002, 09:27 AM
Jes - thanks for your latest responses.

Since it's about 11:30 PM here in Western Australia, and I've already spent a good deal of time on the other forums, I'll have to address your posts tomorrow, after work.

:)

Gerald
June 5th, 2002, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Elena Marie
Forgive me for delving into popular film for a moment, but when I took my daughter to see "Attack of the Clones" I was once again struck by this issue. The clones in the movie were genetically altered to perform a specific task. Does that alteration negate their personhood? I don't think we have nearly as much to worry about in "The Sum of All Fears" as we do in "Attack of the Clones." A nuclear bomb would hurt us badly, but the loss of our shared humanity would destroy us.

I tried to get a thread on this topic going way back on the original ToL board but didn't have any takers. :(

I missed that thread, unfortunately. If you wish, you could pick it up again in the "Forget Secular Humanism" thread I started in this forum to discuss the moral implications of technological advances.

Hope to see you there.

Jefferson
June 5th, 2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Upon what do you base your belief that killing an unborn child is absolutely wrong?
Exo 21:22-23, "If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say. And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life."

jes1994
June 5th, 2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Evangelion
Jes - thanks for your latest responses.

Since it's about 11:30 PM here in Western Australia, and I've already spent a good deal of time on the other forums, I'll have to address your posts tomorrow, after work.

:)

Sounds good. I understand about the other forums. I've been reading. :up:

Anyway, I do want to add one other thing to what I typed. On page 6, I mentioned a book. If you (or anyone else) decides to get that book: it makes the standard pro-life claims about Margaret Sanger. Make sure to read the opposing material for that on a pro-choice website.

MARANATHA2002
June 5th, 2002, 05:51 PM
I believe a woman has a choice. I believe she should have the right to choose, BUT, her choice should be made BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after. Just for my own curiosity, what are the stats, on how many women die from being pregnant, yearly, and what are the medical terms for the conditions/diagnosis that caused their deaths? How many cases have been diagnosed as, have an abortion or die? Are there other options for treatment in these medical diagnosis, or is abortion one of several options? What percentage of these options are abortions? I am asking because I do not know, thought someone may have these answers. Peace, but not yet.

Atheist_Divine
June 5th, 2002, 07:09 PM
NSMinistries,
I am afraid I have been foolish. I snapped off a reply, without thinking about how I might have to respond to your reply. While this is an issue I am interested in, and would like to debate and learn about, and it is an important issue, I should not have run into the debate as I did. I don't have the time at the moment for all the necessary research and formulating of my own thinking, as well as replying to you, that this issue properly deserves, also there are other posters here who no doubt can express themselves rather better, and have thought more deeply, than I have.
Please understand I am not "ducking" the debate because I cannot reply or do not wish to, but because of studying committments I must not allow myself to break by becoming too immersed in a subject which is not related to them.
As this topic is unlikely to ever be concluded to satisfy both sides, I hope I will be able to contribute better some time in the future. :)

~AD~

NSMinistries
June 5th, 2002, 08:56 PM
Atheist_Divine,

Thats alright. Glad you let me know. These debates are for fun and learning but should never take away from our other duties.
Let me know if you do wish to continue and I will be glad to take it up once more.




but because of studying committments I must not allow myself to break by becoming too immersed in a subject which is not related to them.

I am glad to see people take the right attitude towards study of any kind.

God Bless,
NSM

Evangelion
June 6th, 2002, 03:38 AM
Jes -


Quote:
You can see for yourself that raw pragmatism is the driving force behind this mentality - and it does make sense, even though I find it repugnant.


I do see that, and us on the pro-life side of the issue may be looking at the issue with a bit more idealism and less pragmatism, but we're not totally empty on pragmatism. On the pragmatic side, we see unwanted pregnancies occurring because abortion seems to be getting used as just another method of birth control. And abortion being just another method of birth control does make sense if personhood of the fetus prior to viability is a personal choice, rather than a societally imposed one.

Excellent points, with which I heartily concur. The problem (as I see it) is a lack of sex education - and that problem is compounded by the conservative resistance to sex education. If only they would realise that more sex education = less unplanned pregnancies (and therefore fewer abortions), we might start to make progress on this issue.


On the pro-life side, we feel that if abortion were made illegal, then people would be more likely to recognize that their actions (intercourse) had consequences (pregnancy), and then choose their actions based on those consequences. That would then bring down the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and if it were still a problem, we could handle things at that point in some other manner that did not involve an action that we consider to be murder. We on the pro-life side feel that working to keep abortion legal while simultaneously working to reduce unwanted pregnancies is feeding a repeating cycle, and the only way we see to end that cycle is to make abortion illegal.

That's a fair comment, but why not concentrate on the cause of unplanned pregancies first, and introduce anti-abortion legislation in about a year's time, just to give people the chance to improve? Address the cause, and the symptoms will slowly subside. Refuse to address the cause, and you'll only end up treating more symptoms.


Quote:
I would also like to address the "substance abuse/addition" and "cultural stigma" exceptions at some point.


*Jes scratches his head*

Sure. What are those exceptions? May I get a preview?


Substance abuse/addiction: the mother is addicted to a drug (perhaps legal, like nicotine; perhaps illegal, like cocaine) and the addiction is passed on to the foetus. When the baby is born, it begins life with a drug addiction, and must be treated for it immediately. Some can be born with HIV/AIDS.

Social stigma: the mother belongs to a conservative social (and/or religious) community, which will reject her if she carries a fatherless child to full term. In some cases, her brother or father will turn her out of the home - or even kill her as soon as they know she is pregnant. It's a complicated issue, and I've only given you the bare bones in this post.



Quote:
Again, I find this morally inadequate. In fact, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the mother should not be held responsible for the death of the foetus - which means that you have now successfully demolished the pro-life position.
That's a problem, and you'll need to address it at some stage.


You are correct on this, and this may be a bit of my personal bias on who to punish coming into play, possibly due to my being from the US.

I am cautious of a society that permits the instigator of a crime to remain unpunished, while the perpetrator receives all of the blame. There is something very wrong here, Jes. The baby would not have died if the mother had not asked the doctor to terminate it. At some point, she has to bear the responsibility for this decision.


One of the things we try to do over here when we look at a problem and attempt to address it through the legal system is to punish as few people as possible in order to solve that problem. As an example, when we looked at our drug problem and were considering how to address it, our first focus was to punish the dealers rather than the users, partly because there generally are fewer dealers than users (or at least, that idea made sense). Also, a decision to become a dealer (traditionally) involves a larger investment of resources than a decision to become a user. And that may be a poor comparison to abortion, but does that illustrate my principle to you?

That's actually a pretty good comparison, but I believe you have represented the mother as the user, whereas I would have represented her as the dealer. Now, you will say "It's the doctor who provides the service; ergo, he must be the dealer." At first glance, this sounds reasonable enough. But the doctor would not have a foetus to abort, if the mother had not presented him with one. For this reason, I see your analogy in a different light.


Anyway, on abortion: I am open to options either way on whether or not to punish the woman. One of the points that pro-choice people make is that a woman who has been through an abortion has already been punished because of the trauma of the abortion procedure.

It's tempting to think that this is always the case. But every woman is different, and I still think that in order to support the moral principle, some punishment must be enforced. Generalisations and assumptions should be kept to a minimum.


Another thing to keep in mind is that the doctor generally has invested time in learning how to perform the abortion, and money in buying equipment for the procedure, whereas the time of the patient has been invested in, shall we say, other pursuits.

True. Even so, it is the mother who has instigated the abortion. The doctor is only doing his job.


(When I say that, remember that we're putting off the rape exception until we handle the general case)

Sure, no problem. :up:


However, all the points you make on who to punish are 100% correct. If a law we write ends up punishing both doctor and patient, that's fine with me.

Great. :)


The pro-life argument does have to make the case for personhood of the fetus at conception before any other points can be addressed. If we pro-lifers cannot do that, then politically speaking, all our other points are moot. I think that's part of the reason that pro-lifers use those bloody pictures so much in discussion... we/they focus on that one point to the exclusion of all others.

I take your point. Now we still have to address the question of who's responsible for the abortion. As I've already said, your position needs to be tightened up a little, and I'll be interested to see how you choose to apportion the blame.

Cutting to the chase...


Evangelion,

First, I do need to put forth a few assumptions:
1) If person A intentionally kills person B, then person A should be charged with murder. That comes from the definition of person (personhood).

2) For the purposes of #1, an adult human is a person.

3) For the purposes of #1, an egg and a sperm side by side, not yet united, is not a person.

4) Somewhere between #2 and #3, personhood is obtained.

Are all those fair enough assumptions based on the standards we agree on for western civilization?

Not quite. Western civilisation generally accepts that personhood is attained between the third trimester and birth.


I'm going to assume yes, and continue (instead of waiting for a response and splitting to a separate post).

Fair enough. :up:


The transition between #2 and #3 is a fairly well documented transition. There could be several points at which personhood is obtained. Conception and viability are two of those, and the ones to consider here since they are the two we have discussed.

If we place the point of personhood at conception, then we are saying that personhood is obtained solely based on being a member of the human race. That's when the sperm's chromosomes combine with the egg's chromosomes to become the chromosomes of the human genome. That's the point that I claim, the point that makes the most sense to me.

On the other hand, if we say viability is the point, we are saying that personhood status depends on something other than the human genome. We're saying personhood depends on development level. I think that idea runs counter to the ideals of western civilization. Could someone lose personhood if they developed incorrectly? Could they develop past the point of personhood?

That's a good question, and one which Western civilisation has yet to solve, IMHO. I can't say that I've got a perfect answer for you myself. It's something which still requires more thought.

jes1994
June 6th, 2002, 04:37 AM
Evangelion,


The problem (as I see it) is a lack of sex education - and that problem is compounded by the conservative resistance to sex education.
I agree with you on that point. I'm not saying my conservative brethren are perfect and angellic... if we dig deep enough into the issue you might see several of them disagree with me.


... why not concentrate on the cause of unplanned pregancies first, and introduce anti-abortion legislation in about a year's time ...
Why not pass legislation with a one year starting date?


I take your point. Now we still have to address the question of who's responsible for the abortion. As I've already said, your position needs to be tightened up a little, and I'll be interested to see how you choose to apportion the blame.
In most western societies, we generally try to work through things with the political process, compromising where things seem reasonable. Once we get the personhood question worked out, then we can use the political process to work out the punishment question. We can compromise as needed.


Western civilisation generally accepts that personhood is attained between the third trimester and birth.
Starting purely from logical grounds: Sperm-egg not yet united is not a person, adult is a person. The transition has to occur at some point between the two conditions. Nothing to do with western civilization yet, purely logic and human biology.

So list out the points that are possible. Make a list on paper, in your head, or bring them up here on TOL. Each and every one of them can be translated into a statement of 'personhood depends on X'. (note that all but one of the exceptional cases can also be translated into a similar statement)

Now bring in western civilization. The standards of western civilization will find every one of those statements repulsive, except for conception.

Zakath
June 6th, 2002, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Jefferson

Exo 21:22-23, "If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say. And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life."

Thanks for the reply, Jefferson.

I believe I understand the first portion about a woman being inujred and having a miscarriage as the result of a fight between men.

Can you explain how you read the bolded sentence? It seems to follow along with the "eye for an eye" philosophy that limits damages in ancient Hebrew law, but I'd like to hear your interpretation...

Jefferson
June 6th, 2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Can you explain how you read the bolded sentence? It seems to follow along with the "eye for an eye" philosophy that limits damages in ancient Hebrew law, but I'd like to hear your interpretation...
I need to make sure I understand your question before I answer. Are you asking what the punishment should be if the premature birth caused the infant to be born retarded, for example? Or perhaps with a deformed hand? Is this what you are asking?

Zakath
June 6th, 2002, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Jefferson

I need to make sure I understand your question before I answer. Are you asking what the punishment should be if the premature birth caused the infant to be born retarded, for example? Or perhaps with a deformed hand? Is this what you are asking?

I think you're on the right track. To me, "life for life" would be a form of limited liablility to reduce the chance of a blood feud or vendetta.. Let's follow your train of thought, though. What would be, in your mind a reasonable penalty for killing an unborn infant?

Jefferson
June 6th, 2002, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
What would be, in your mind a reasonable penalty for killing an unborn infant?
The death penalty via public stoning.

Zakath
June 8th, 2002, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Jefferson

The death penalty via public stoning.
Can you think of any conditions in which you believe killing an unborn infant is not absolutely wrong?

Jefferson
June 10th, 2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Can you think of any conditions in which you believe killing an unborn infant is not absolutely wrong?
Nope.

Zakath
June 10th, 2002, 02:55 PM
I asked Jefferson, a fellow who uses a dead baby for an avatar on a Christian web board :(, the following question:
"Can you think of any conditions in which you believe killing an unborn infant is not absolutely wrong?"
Jefferson eloquently replied:

"Nope."

Try using a little imagination, Jefferson. I can provide several scenarios for someone who's a supporter of the Enyartian "ACM" (that's American Constitutional Monarchy for you newbies) and it's accompanying legal system...

Scenario #1. Under the ACM, having an abortion, encouraging someone to have an abortion, or performing an abortion are capital crimes. If a pregnant woman was involved in any of those acts, she's subject to a "speedy" trial and execution. That's three examples...

Scenario #2. Under the ACM, practitioners of homosexuality are capital offenders, subject to the same rapid trial and execution. A pregnant lesbian (e.g. Rosie O'Donnell's significant other), would be liable for the death penalty.

Let's see: three in number one and one in number two; that's four examples of mankind using your deity's law to cause the death of the unborn...

Of course we could always discuss your opinion of biblical examples of butchering the unborn at the command of YHWH, but that usually makes people uncomfortable on forums like this one...

Jaltus
June 10th, 2002, 03:03 PM
Hmm, how about cases where if the child is born, both it and the mother will die, whereas if it is aborted, only the child will die?

Knight
June 10th, 2002, 04:01 PM
Zakath, I always sort of thought you were a tad smarter than your last post would indicate.

There is this funny and very accurate little thing called a "pregnancy test" and with it you can determine if a woman is pregnant, even in the earliest stages!

You continue....
Of course we could always discuss your opinion of biblical examples of butchering the unborn at the command of YHWH, but that usually makes people uncomfortable on forums like this one...Again, Zakath your letting so many people down who envision you as a tad more rational than your typical atheist. I of course would disagree as I happen to know that you claim it isn't necessarily wrong to rape a nine year old girl (that certainly isn't rational).

You fail to understand the difference between killing and murder. When war's happen and people are killing each other there are tragic consequences. When a country has a righteous reason to go to war with another country, men, woman, children (born and unborn) get killed. Tragic indeed but not murder! When the USA began it's war against the Al-Queida terrorist government there were innocent Afgan deaths that were a direct cause form this war, but those deaths were not murder's, they were tragic consequences of war. A murder, is when someone knowingly takes the life of a person with malice (evil intent) or for a non-righteous reason. This of course would be the Christian view, and I can understand the typical atheist confusion since to an atheist there are no righteous reasons for anything. All "reason's" to an atheist for every action or non-action are equally legitimate. Therefore you Zakath have a hard time making distinctions between murder and killing.

Jefferson
June 10th, 2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Scenario #2. Under the ACM, practitioners of homosexuality are capital offenders, subject to the same rapid trial and execution. A pregnant lesbian (e.g. Rosie O'Donnell's significant other), would be liable for the death penalty.[/b]
Under this scenario, most certainly the execution would be delayed until after the baby was born.

Zakath
June 11th, 2002, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Knight
...I of course would disagree as I happen to know that you claim it isn't necessarily wrong to rape a nine year old girl (that certainly isn't rational).
Well Knight, you certainly haven't let me down. You are living up (down?) to your usual standards of misrepresentation and telling half-truths. I never made the claim you represent above. As "Administrator" it's completely within your ability to provide a quotation with context, showing that I made such a ridiculous statement.

How about doing so? :rolleyes:


You fail to understand the difference between killing and murder...you Zakath have a hard time making distinctions between murder and killing. No, I do not fail to understand it. I am very much aware of the difference. It's why I did not use the word "murder" in any of my posts.

The problem I am pointing to arises when any group of people claims that their deity authorizes killing of other people. As a humanist atheist, it matters little to me whether the group claiming divine sanction for butchery is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. All of you have historically justified killing those you dislike or disagree with as "the will of God". Included in those killings are pregnant women. You bear the burden of refuting historical proof of the actions of religionists in killing the unborn while claiming to be conforming to a deity's desires. All this while claiming to "love the unborn". It provides a wonderful example of "doublespeak".

Your popular pastime of playing word-games to redirect the argument will not win your point here, Knight. You may re-define death by calling it a "tragic consequence" but to the corpses, it is still death. Killing a pregnant woman without removing the baby (as in Caesar's case) is killing the unborn. Period.

How about applying your alleged moral superiority to answering the question I placed to Jefferson last week? :rolleyes:

"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"

Knight
June 11th, 2002, 10:44 AM
Zakath asks....

"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"

I have actually already answered this in my last post, but not directly so let me do so here.

IF the question were stated....

"Do you believe that murdering unborn children is absolutely wrong?"

The answer is - YES

However, your question was....

"Do you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?"

The answer is no, as "killing" and "murder" are different. For instance unborn children might be "killed" in war and that is tragic but not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be "killed" in an auto wreck but that is not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be accidentally killed in a medical procedure and that is not absolutely wrong. An unborn child might be killed if the mother was attempting to murder someone and the "would be " victim killed the mother in self defense and therefore that would not be absolutely wrong.

Again, the answer lies in the difference between "murder" and "kill".

Knight
June 11th, 2002, 10:59 AM
memory refresher (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1581)

Zakath
June 11th, 2002, 11:43 AM
Sheesh! Why do you Christians have to make everything so difficult??? :rolleyes:

I asked you one simple question and get 160+ words in response. All you would have to have written was, "No." ;)

Since you're so voluble today, let's pursue your line of reasoning.

The word "kill" does not imply motive, as does the word "murder". It merely means "to put to death" (see http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=kill). What it does imply is participation. It would appear that you do not believe that accidental killings are absolutely wrong.

So, when a drunken driver accidentally strikes my neighbor's pregnant wife with his automobile, killing her and her unborn child, you don't think that's absolutely wrong?

I'll be interested to read your reply...

Zakath
June 11th, 2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Knight
memory refresher (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1581)
I re-read your post and you were arguing "absolute" morality, not preference.

If I read your prior statement on this thread correctly, you claimed that I stated that some action we both find morally offensive "isn't necessarily wrong". That's a far cry from "absolute morality". My claim in the previous arguement was that I do not believe it is possible, at least for me, to promote "absolute morality".

We could always re-open this on another thread. It might be fun to watch you play word games trying to defend what you term "absolute morality", which, from your previous arguments appears to be neither absolute or moral. In your view, absolute morality appears to have so many loopholes and exceptions that it resembles situational ethics more than absolutism.

Of course, what more should we expect from a member of a group that teaches "limited omniscience". ;)

Knight
June 11th, 2002, 12:05 PM
Zakath states...
It would appear that you do not believe that accidental killings are absolutely wrong.

So, when a drunken driver accidentally strikes my neighbor's pregnant wife with his automobile, killing her and her unborn child, you don't think that's absolutely wrong?How confusing life must be for you.

Such simple concepts and clear answers elude you.

A drunken driver cannot "accidentally" kill your wife and unborn child since a person cannot get "accidentally" drunk. A drunken driver is already in the act of committing his crime of public drunkenness and any crime he commits due to his drunkenness is no "accident".

Knight
June 11th, 2002, 12:08 PM
Zakath states...
If I read your prior statement on this thread correctly, you claimed that I stated that some action we both find morally offensive "isn't necessarily wrong". That's a far cry from "absolute morality". My claim in the previous arguement was that I do not believe it is possible, at least for me, to promote "absolute morality".Stating that something isn't absolutely wrong is no different than stating that something isn't necessarily wrong.

Zakath
June 11th, 2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Knight
...How confusing life must be for you. Only when conversing with confusing individuals like you, Knight. ;)


Such simple concepts and clear answers elude you.Perhaps if you presented one, it wouldn't.


A drunken driver cannot "accidentally" kill your wife and unborn child since a person cannot get "accidentally" drunk. A drunken driver is already in the act of committing his crime of public drunkenness and any crime he commits due to his drunkenness is no "accident".

Accident - "An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm" source (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=accident)

What an odd realm you live in Knight! One in which a few ounces of a chemical in the bloodstream removes a human being to a universe in which accidents do not exist and makes the individual completely responsible for all the results of their actions, both intended and unintended. I'm glad your legal constructs don't apply in my plane of existence. :rolleyes:

Using your moral system and this scenario, with what crime should the DUI driver be charged?

BTW, in the illustration it was my neighbor's wife, not mine. ;)

Knight
June 11th, 2002, 01:53 PM
Zakath...
What an odd realm you live in Knight! One in which a few ounces of a chemical in the bloodstream removes a human being to a universe in which accidents do not exist and makes the individual completely responsible for all the results of their actions, both intended and unintended. I'm glad your legal constructs don't apply in my plane of existence.They don't?

Actually even our flawed legal system applies this construct.

A drunken driver is usually charged with manslaughter when he drifts into oncoming traffic and kills another driver, yet a sober person may not be charged at all, or charged with a much lesser crime (reckless driving etc.) depending on the circumstances.

Zakath
June 11th, 2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Knight
...A drunken driver is usually charged...

Thank you for your insighful editorial comment on the current legal system in your state.

Will you answer my question now? I've emphasized the operative word for you...

"Using your moral system and this scenario, with what crime should the DUI driver be charged? "

Gerald
June 11th, 2002, 02:54 PM
How about this: the aforementioned pregnant woman is talking on a cell phone when she attempts to cross the street against a light and is struck.

Who should be liable? Last time I checked, a driver who has the right of way is not liable for pedestrian error...

One presumes that under the ACM such protections would be summarily revoked. After all, someone must be held accountable...

Zakath
June 11th, 2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Gerald
How about this: the aforementioned pregnant woman is talking on a cell phone when she attempts to cross the street against a light and is struck.

Who should be liable? Last time I checked, a driver who has the right of way is not liable for pedestrian error...

That may vary from location to location. In the Washington DC area, most jurisdictions will charge the driver if the pedestrian is struck while inside a crosswalk, even when crossing against the light...

Silly? Yes. But remember, it's the logic-free zone of Washington DC!


One presumes that under the ACM such protections would be summarily revoked. After all, someone must be held accountable...

Maybe that should be the de facto ACM legal motto:

"So many to execute, and so little time..." :rolleyes:

Pilgrimagain
June 11th, 2002, 09:36 PM
if a sober driver acts in neglegently, he or she may well still be charged with man slaughter.

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 08:09 AM
I'd still like to see Knight's view on what "should" happen based on the allegedly superior ACM legal code...

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
I'd still like to see Knight's view on what "should" happen based on the allegedly superior ACM legal code... Zakath, if your so interested in the ACM (which is a FICTIONAL government contained in a FICTION writing by Bob Enyart) why don't you call him yourself. I didn't write the book!

To answer your question...
The driver is either guilty of murder or at very least manslaughter in the act of committing another crime (drunkenness) and he should be put to death. I base this answer assuming the guy is drunk and his drunkenness causes him to lose control of his vehicle and crashes into another car killing one or more innocent passengers in the other vehicle.

I am not sure what your point is, but what do you think should happen to the drunk driver who kills innocent people?

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Knight
Zakath, if your so interested in the ACM (which is a FICTIONAL government contained in a FICTION writing by Bob Enyart) why don't you call him yourself. I didn't write the book!
Perhaps designating the ACM as a model government proposed by Shadowgov would be closer to historical reality. ;)

Weren't you affiliated with Shadowgov at one point?

Haven't you sat under St. Bob the Broadcaster's teaching for at least a year?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is "yes" then I feel comfortable in your ability to answer questions about Enyart's "mythical monarchy", though I can see where you might have some sensitivity about discussing concepts involved in installing the ACM, post 9-11.


To answer your question...Ring bells, sing songs, Knight's going to answer my question... :D


The driver is either guilty of murder or at very least manslaughter in the act of committing another crime (drunkenness) and he should be put to death. I base this answer assuming the guy is drunk and his drunkenness causes him to lose control of his vehicle and crashes into another car killing one or more innocent passengers in the other vehicle.

I am not sure what your point is... OK, Knight, I'm trying to elicit from you what criteria you would use to discern whether it's murder or manslaughter. The fellow cannot be charged, at least in our current legal system, with two different levels of a crimes for the same act (double jeopardy). Try to pick one.


but what do you think should happen to the drunk driver who kills innocent people? Let's wait on this. I'll answer this after you come up with a single answer, not "he is guilty of either this or that..."

Thanks.

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 01:26 PM
Zakath states…
Weren't you affiliated with Shadowgov at one point? No, but I thought it was a cool idea!

You continue…
Haven't you sat under St. Bob the Broadcaster's teaching for at least a year? Yes, along with many other teachers. Your point?

You continue…
If the answer to either or both of those questions is "yes" then I feel comfortable in your ability to answer questions about Enyart's "mythical monarchy", though I can see where you might have some sensitivity about discussing concepts involved in installing the ACM, post 9-11.Why? The ACM didn’t “overthrow” the US government in book.

You continue…
OK, Knight, I'm trying to elicit from you what criteria you would use to discern whether it's murder or manslaughter. The fellow cannot be charged, at least in our current legal system, with two different levels of a crimes for the same act (double jeopardy). Try to pick one.Two points…

A. (You really have a short term memory don't you?) Originally you were not asking me the question based on our current system.
B. Determining murder vs. manslaughter under our current system or a righteous justice system would take looking at the case and its specific facts. Although if guilty under a righteous system the death penalty is the proper penalty for either crime (murder or manslaughter).

Now you can answer the question I asked of you.

Gerald
June 12th, 2002, 01:48 PM
So, would the driver be executed for killing our hypothetical pregnant woman if he had not been drunk, his car was in good repair, and he had been driving in accordance with local ordinances?

Is he liable if, for example, the woman wandered into traffic while talking on a cell phone? Two tons of metal moving at 30 mph can't stop on a dime, you know...

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 02:56 PM
Gerald says...
So, would the driver be executed for killing our hypothetical pregnant woman if he had not been drunk, his car was in good repair, and he had been driving in accordance with local ordinances?

Is he liable if, for example, the woman wandered into traffic while talking on a cell phone? Two tons of metal moving at 30 mph can't stop on a dime, you know...
Of course he would not be executed (based on your example) why would you even ask that? Gerald, are you on medication? You have a hard time making rational posts.

Gerald
June 12th, 2002, 03:21 PM
Thanks for clarifying, Knight; I can never tell with "hang 'em high" types like you. For all I know you might recommend putting him to death as an object lesson, just to put the "fear of God" into people so they'll be more careful on the street.

And spare me the insults, please. It isn't like I call you names.

Oh. I forgot. These aren't insults. They're loving rebukes, delivered in an attempt to save a poor dumb atheist from eternal damnation.

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Knight ]
(You really have a short term memory don't you?) Originally you were not asking me the question based on our current system.I wasn't that time either. Since the ACM's system was the one I was asking about, I merely used the current system as an example. Hence my use of the phrase "at least in our current system" which I presumed indicated that the current system was not the one under discussion. I apologize if I was not clear.

quote]Determining murder vs. manslaughter under our current system or a righteous justice system would take looking at the case and its specific facts.[/quote] One would hope. Although I believe I presented enough facts to facilitate the discussion at hand.

Although if guilty under a righteous system the death penalty is the proper penalty for either crime (murder or manslaughter).
Finally, the answer to the question I asked!
That wasn't too hard, was it? :D

As promised, my answer to your question:
...what do you think should happen to the drunk driver who kills innocent people?
Indictment and trial by jury for manslaughter. If convicted, execution.

Now if you're willing, on to the next scenario which brings us back closer to the thread topic...
Suppose my neighbor's pregnant wife was not killed, merely injured. Due to the injuries she sustained after being hit by the drunken driver's auto, she miscarried and produced a still-birth.

Q: In this scenario, what penalty would you mete out for the drunken driver under your hypothetically "righteous" system?
What is the basis for your judgement?

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Gerald
Thanks for clarifying, Knight; I can never tell with "hang 'em high" types like you. For all I know you might recommend putting him to death as an object lesson, just to put the "fear of God" into people so they'll be more careful on the street.

And spare me the insults, please. It isn't like I call you names.

Oh. I forgot. These aren't insults. They're loving rebukes, delivered in an attempt to save a poor dumb atheist from eternal damnation. :D

Gerald
June 12th, 2002, 03:37 PM
Remind me to tell you one day about why I never bother with loving, verbal rebukes...

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 03:40 PM
Zakath states...
Finally, the answer to the question I asked!
That wasn't too hard, was it?Not at all, especially since this was the second time I said it!

You continue...
Indictment and trial by jury for manslaughter. If convicted, execution.Cool! We agree!

You continue...
Now if you're willing, on to the next scenario which brings us back closer to the thread topic...
Suppose my neighbor's pregnant wife was not killed, merely injured. Due to the injuries she sustained after being hit by the drunken driver's auto, she miscarried and produced a still-birth.

Q: In this scenario, what penalty would you mete out for the drunken driver under your hypothetically "righteous" system?
What is the basis for your judgement?The same as before! Manslaughter and swift and painful death. In this scenario the drunk killed one person instead of two. How would you answer?

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Gerald
Remind me to tell you one day about why I never bother with loving, verbal rebukes... That's a big job to remind you every day.... I am not sure I want to take on that added responsibility. ;)

Pilgrimagain
June 12th, 2002, 04:05 PM
actually, a person can be tried with two different levels of a charge. This is not double jeapardy. Double Jeapardy applies if you have already been tried once and it also provides haven so that one can not be tried at two separate trials for the same crime with different theories.

THe Jury however can be instructed to find the party guilty on different levels depending on the case that is presented.

Pilgrimagain
June 12th, 2002, 04:06 PM
calrification, new and lesser charges can not be added after the fact if they are for the same action. Any charges must be leveled at the onset. Maybe that is what you were refering to?

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Zakath states...The same as before! Manslaughter and swift and painful death. In this scenario the drunk killed one person instead of two.

On what moral "absolute" would you base this opinion. Even in your bible's OT, they were more merciful:

Exo 21:22-23, "If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say. And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life."

In that case, an "accidental" miscarriage, without permanent injury to the woman, would be punished by some sort of fine ("he shall pay"). Not death.

Sounds like my ACM legal motto fits better than I thought:
"So many to execute, so little time..."


How would you answer? Indicted and tried by jury for manslaughter. If convicted, reparations (damages) paid to the family and jail time.

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
actually, a person can be tried with two different levels of a charge. Maybe in Michigan.

But in Virginia you are charged with a single offense at a time.

If the prosecution fails to provide sufficient level of proof to convince the jury (or judge in an non-jury trial) then the jury may be instructed to decide between the charge being tried and a lesser one, at the judge's discretion.

I'm not a lawyer, but have some small experience with the legal system, having served as an expert witness and as a juror. For example, I recently sat on a jury in a drug case. The plaintiff was charged with "possession with intent to distribute". If we did not feel that the prosecution had sufficiently proved their case, we were instructed during deliberations, to consider the lesser charge of "possession" or acquittal.

However the person was charged and tried for "possession with intent", not possession.

Hope that clarifies things.

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 04:38 PM
Zakath states...
In that case, an "accidental" miscarriage, without permanent injury to the woman, would be punished by some sort of fine ("he shall pay"). Not death. "accidental miscarriage"? You never said anything about a "accidental miscarriage" you said...

Suppose my neighbor's pregnant wife was not killed, merely injured. Due to the injuries she sustained after being hit by the drunken driver's auto, she miscarried and produced a still-birth.
That is NOT an "accidental miscarriage", not if it was caused "Due to the injuries she sustained".

You continue...
Indicted and tried by jury for manslaughter. If convicted, reparations (damages) paid to the family and jail time.Why the different judgment? In one scenario he killed two people and in the next scenario he killed one.

And furthermore.... what reparations would be made for the killed baby?

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Zakath states...Why the different judgment? In one scenario he killed two people and in the next scenario he killed one.

...what reparations would be made for the killed baby?

Why do you continue to ask questions after insulting me by telling me my worldview is irrelevant. Aren't my opinions as irrelevant to you as my worldview? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't waste the Admin's valuable time with my irrelevant answers... :rolleyes:

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Zakath


Why do you continue to ask questions after insulting me by telling me my worldview is irrelevant. Aren't my opinions as irrelevant to you as my worldview? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't waste the Admin's valuable time with my irrelevant answers... :rolleyes: Zakath, it was you who said...
As for whether they are "wrong"?, I'll leave that determination up to you religionists.

firechyld
June 12th, 2002, 07:25 PM
Zakath, if your so interested in the ACM (which is a FICTIONAL government contained in a FICTION writing by Bob Enyart) why don't you call him yourself. I didn't write the book!

I've actually asked repeatedly if anyone could obtain for me a copy of this document, or arrange a way for me to get for a reduced price. It really does fascinate me... unfortunately I am a poor me, and the Aussie -> US currency exchange doesn't help.

Unsurprisingly, no-one got back to me.


firechyld

Zakath
June 12th, 2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by firechyld


I've actually asked repeatedly if anyone could obtain for me a copy of this document, or arrange a way for me to get for a reduced price. It really does fascinate me... unfortunately I am a poor me, and the Aussie -> US currency exchange doesn't help.

Unsurprisingly, no-one got back to me.


firechyld
Perhaps an email to the folks at the source (www.enyart.com) might help?

Knight
June 12th, 2002, 10:06 PM
Actually, try www.kgov.com

cirisme
September 28th, 2002, 12:18 PM
Ummm, I saw this commercial when it first came out a couple months ago, but it doesn't exist on the server anymore. Does anybody have an extra copy/or a link to one?

cirisme
September 28th, 2002, 12:30 PM
I found it, but how can I save the movie for future viewing, I always forget how in IE. :o(IE's system is so weird ;))

Yxboom
September 28th, 2002, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
I found it, but how can I save the movie for future viewing, I always forget how in IE. :o(IE's system is so weird ;))


This is all I can offer...in
windows media. (http://www.gemedicalsystems.com/rad/us/4d/vidwin-4d.html?movie=/rad/us/video/4d-100k.asx&title=GE%204D%20Ultrasound&caption=We%20bring%20good%20things%20to%20life.%20 %20Now%20in%204D.)

Pilgrimagain
October 5th, 2002, 11:52 AM
?

cirisme
October 5th, 2002, 07:32 PM
That was helpful, pa. :rolleyes:

Eireann
October 6th, 2002, 01:16 AM
Nice commercial. Cute commercial. Sweet commercial. Had absolutely zero to do with abortion. Pro-lifers, you're getting desperate, and it's showing. What were you hoping to accomplish? To get pro-choicers to see how beautiful life is? Did it ever occur to you that we already know? Have any of you even made the slightest attempt to understand that "pro-choice" is not "pro-abortion?" Well, let me answer that for you -- NO, you haven't! But that's how you operate, isn't it ... invent an enemy, paint them as evil, ignore the truth about them. Common. Still pathetic.

Jefferson
October 6th, 2002, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Eireann
But that's how you operate, isn't it ... invent an enemy, paint them as evil, ignore the truth about them. Common. Still pathetic.
Paint them as evil? Anyone who would kill that baby in that commercial for any reason is evil.

ebenz47037
October 6th, 2002, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Elena Marie
Just an aside--A piece I composed on this topic for an advanced writing course may be viewed here (http://www.web-musings.com/writing/nonfiction/swimmingupstreamaroundthedrain.html)

Excellent article Elena. I'm thinking of printing it out and giving it to my pastor.

Eireann
October 6th, 2002, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Jefferson

Paint them as evil? Anyone who would kill that baby in that commercial for any reason is evil.
I'm talking about people who are pro-choice, not people who are pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice, and I'm very anti-abortion. Like Evan, the only instance in which I could support a decision to abort a child is in the event that the mother's life is unquestionably in danger. In such a case, a decision would have to be made, and that decision would inevitably leave someone dead. Fortunately, that situtation is exceedingly rare! In any other case, I am opposed to abortion. There are other alternatives -- adoption, etc.

But what I was going on about was the way so many pro-lifers automatically label anyone who is pro-choice as "pro-abortion" then refuse to listen when anyone tries to explain the difference. The fact is, most pro-choicers that I've met -- and most people I know are pro-choice -- are nearly as vehemently opposed to abortion as I am.

cirisme
October 6th, 2002, 06:34 PM
Pro-choice usually means that the mother gets to choose anytime. The situation you describe isn't exactly where you get to "choose."

:rolleyes:

Pilgrimagain
October 7th, 2002, 12:10 PM
too true

Eireann
October 7th, 2002, 01:34 PM
I'm speaking of a situation in which the mother is alert and aware of the consequences to her health of having the baby, in which she is capable of making the decision herself. If the mother is incapacitated and the decision must be made by someone else, it's a whole different ballpark.

Pilgrimagain
October 7th, 2002, 02:03 PM
Hereis a statistic I have heard and which I have not seen anyone refute. less than 2% of abortions are performed for health issues or rape. Is that an accurate statistic?

cirisme
October 7th, 2002, 02:04 PM
Yes.

Pilgrimagain
October 7th, 2002, 02:11 PM
If that's the case, then why are the arguments so complicated. Almost everyone I know, on both sides of the debate will stipulate that abortion for convenience or as birth control is wrong. With 98% of all abortions being for just those reasons, why is their any argument at all?

cirisme
October 7th, 2002, 02:27 PM
Because abortion clinics are making a killing, pun not intended, off of abortions. Especially partial birth abortions.

They fear that if they give even an inch, by even decalring an unborn baby a human, they will lose their pot of gold.

Eireann
October 7th, 2002, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
Because abortion clinics are making a killing, pun not intended, off of abortions. Especially partial birth abortions.

They fear that if they give even an inch, by even decalring an unborn baby a human, they will lose their pot of gold.
That, unfortunately, is all too true. What should be a last resort emergency procedure has become an industry.

Eireann
October 7th, 2002, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
Hereis a statistic I have heard and which I have not seen anyone refute. less than 2% of abortions are performed for health issues or rape. Is that an accurate statistic?
That sounds pretty accurate to me. Personally, I won't even support rape abortions. There isn't evidence that I'm aware of that says rape tendencies are hereditary. So there's no reason to abort the child because of a fear that it will be like it's father. Nor is not wanting the child because it's a rape baby a very good reason, either -- there's always adoption.

cirisme
October 8th, 2002, 09:58 AM
Eireann,
I always thought you were pro-choice in any situation. I'm glad you're not, you just moved up a notch in my eyes. :thumb:

God bless,
-AJ :angel:

firechyld
October 11th, 2002, 04:12 AM
Pro-choice usually means that the mother gets to choose anytime. The situation you describe isn't exactly where you get to "choose."


Hrmmm... but "pro-life" tends to mean no abortion, ever, under any circumstances, no matter what, and everyone else has to be pro-life too or they're labelled baby killers. :(

firechyld

Axacta
October 11th, 2002, 05:42 AM
>Hrmmm... but "pro-life" tends to mean no abortion, ever, under any circumstances, no matter what, and everyone else has to be pro-life too or they're labelled baby killers.<

And your point is...

firechyld
October 11th, 2002, 10:03 AM
That that isn't the only definition, just as there isn't only one definition for pro-life. They're all just labels, which tend to not be completely accurate all of the time.