Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

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

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

 

[On Fire]

Re: misinformation

Re: misinformation

Originally posted by smothers
Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others?

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

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

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

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

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

Would you please answer my earlier inquiries?

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

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

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

Would you please answer my earlier inquiries?

Sure:

Where did (I) come from? London, England

Who moved the rock? The web-master

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


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

 

[smothers]

Re: Re: misinformation

Re: Re: misinformation

Originally posted by On Fire

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

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

Would it be fair to rephrase your question as:

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

Mark

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

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

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

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

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

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

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

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

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

 

[Aimiel]

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

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

You can of course question my mental health or the veracity of my argument.

I do both, thank you.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I do both, thank you.

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

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

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

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

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

 

[Aimiel]

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

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Aimiel

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

What standards would you use?

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

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

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

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

 

[Zakath]

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

Since what many religionists refer to as "the soul" only seems to be manifest in humans with functioning brains, I would concur with this assessment.

 

[Gerald]

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

Aw, just punch him in the throat and move on.

 

[Balder]

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

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Balder

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

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

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

 

[Zakath]

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

Not presuming to speak for Aimiel, but I would find such a belief remarkably disingenuous for someone who claims divine authority for biblical text.

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

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

 

[Balder]

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that babies are doomed too?

 

[cattyfan]

originally posted by Zakath

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

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

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

Originally posted by Zakath


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

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

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

and Crow asks this:

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

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

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

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