ABORTION.......

Foxfyre wrote:

It would seem to me that it is no more presumptious of those who say the unborn child is a very young human being than it is presumptious of those who say the child must be born in order to be a human being. The difficulty of this is that the 6-month premie fighting for his/her life indeed considered a human being while the 6-month baby still incubating in the womb is not?

So if we agree there is a gray area there and start counting back to a point that the baby is no longer a baby or human or a person or a life, at what point do you establish that fact?

Your logic is faulty. Why? Because by that argument it would be no more presumptuous to say a spermatozoa is a very young human being. Why? Because it too can become fully a human being by anyone's reasonable measure under the right circumstances.

All definitions of a human being aside, a potential human being is not a human being.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It would seem to me that it is no more presumptious of those who say the unborn child is a very young human being than it is presumptious of those who say the child must be born in order to be a human being. The difficulty of this is that the 6-month premie fighting for his/her life indeed considered a human being while the 6-month baby still incubating in the womb is not?

So if we agree there is a gray area there and start counting back to a point that the baby is no longer a baby or human or a person or a life, at what point do you establish that fact?
Your logic is faulty. Why? Because by that argument it would be no more presumptuous to say a spermatozoa is a very young human being. Why? Because it too can become fully a human being by anyone's reasonable measure under the right circumstances.

All definitions of a human being aside, a potential human being is not a human being.

Your biology is faulty. Why?

The sperm will never become a human being unless it fertilizes an egg.

The sperm and the egg each carry 23 chromosomes.

A human being carries 46.

Neither sperm nor egg will ever, just by being protected and nourished, mature into a fully grown human being.

A fertilized egg will, just by being protected and nourished, mature into a fully grown human being.

It is not just presumptuous to say that the sperm is a very young human, it's false.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It would seem to me that it is no more presumptious of those who say the unborn child is a very young human being than it is presumptious of those who say the child must be born in order to be a human being. The difficulty of this is that the 6-month premie fighting for his/her life indeed considered a human being while the 6-month baby still incubating in the womb is not?

So if we agree there is a gray area there and start counting back to a point that the baby is no longer a baby or human or a person or a life, at what point do you establish that fact?
Your logic is faulty. Why? Because by that argument it would be no more presumptuous to say a spermatozoa is a very young human being. Why? Because it too can become fully a human being by anyone's reasonable measure under the right circumstances.

All definitions of a human being aside, a potential human being is not a human being.

Your biology is faulty. Why?

The sperm will never become a human being unless it fertilizes an egg.

The sperm and the egg each carry 23 chromosomes.

A human being carries 46.

Neither sperm nor egg will ever, just by being protected and nourished, mature into a fully grown human being.

A fertilized egg will, just by being protected and nourished, mature into a fully grown human being.

It is not just presumptuous to say that the sperm is a very young human, it's false.

Wrong, under the right circumstances a spermatozoa can indeed become a human being.

0 Replies

I understand why many are unnerved by the idea of government telling women what choices they can and cannot make regarding their pregnancy.

Government has alot of say over the individual as it is. Some say too much.

Do those who want the choice to remain with the woman want her choices to be as illuminated and educated as possible?

example.

A woman at 6 months is considering abortion and the clinic reveals to the woman that according to science....there is evidence that suggests the unborn fetus may experience intense pain during the procedure.

Do we want the women who choose abortion to have all the facts available before deciding?

Can you think of any good reason to not inform the mother about new discoveries made regarding the unborn?

How about pro educated choice? It's a big decision and I think should be as educated as possible.Yes? No?

What would be wrong with a compromise where the choice will still remain with the individual woman provided she is as at least informed about the scientific facts?

Planned Parenthood would be thrilled.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It would seem to me that it is no more presumptious of those who say the unborn child is a very young human being than it is presumptious of those who say the child must be born in order to be a human being. The difficulty of this is that the 6-month premie fighting for his/her life indeed considered a human being while the 6-month baby still incubating in the womb is not?

So if we agree there is a gray area there and start counting back to a point that the baby is no longer a baby or human or a person or a life, at what point do you establish that fact?
Your logic is faulty. Why? Because by that argument it would be no more presumptuous to say a spermatozoa is a very young human being. Why? Because it too can become fully a human being by anyone's reasonable measure under the right circumstances.

All definitions of a human being aside, a potential human being is not a human being.

Your biology is faulty. Why?

The sperm will never become a human being unless it fertilizes an egg.

The sperm and the egg each carry 23 chromosomes.

A human being carries 46.

Neither sperm nor egg will ever, just by being protected and nourished, mature into a fully grown human being.

A fertilized egg will, just by being protected and nourished, mature into a fully grown human being.

It is not just presumptuous to say that the sperm is a very young human, it's false.
Wrong, under the right circumstances a spermatozoa can indeed become a human being.

Do you mean the sperm can become a human being under the circumstances real life pointed out or that a sperm....all by it's lonesome can become a human being?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I understand why many are unnerved by the idea of government telling women what choices they can and cannot make regarding their pregnancy.

Government has alot of say over the individual as it is. Some say too much.

Do those who want the choice to remain with the woman want her choices to be as illuminated and educated as possible?

example.

A woman at 6 months is considering abortion and the clinic reveals to the woman that according to science....there is evidence that suggests the unborn fetus may experience intense pain during the procedure.

Do we want the women who choose abortion to have all the facts available before deciding?

Can you think of any good reason to not inform the mother about new discoveries made regarding the unborn?

How about pro educated choice? It's a big decision and I think should be as educated as possible.Yes? No?

What would be wrong with a compromise where the choice will still remain with the individual woman provided she is as at least informed about the scientific facts?

Planned Parenthood would be thrilled.

Sounds more like trying to scare and shame women with specious pro-life rhetoric. The woman can make her own mind up without Christian interventionism. Fear guilt and shame are pivotal to the Christian theology, it's no surprise you would apply the same tenants to your views on manipulating women:

Christianity is based on fear
Christianity preys on the innocent
Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
Christianity breeds authoritarianism
Christianity is cruel
Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
Christianity is misogynistic
Christianity is homophobic

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Do you mean the sperm can become a human being under the circumstances real life pointed out or that a sperm....all by it's lonesome can become a human being?

Read the prior posts and you will understand.

0 Replies

Damn, dude.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Do you mean the sperm can become a human being under the circumstances real life pointed out or that a sperm....all by it's lonesome can become a human being?

Read the prior posts and you will understand. My statement was for the purposes of showing the inanity of a claim.

0 Replies

Typo!

Chumly wrote:

Fear guilt and shame are pivotal to the Christian theology, it's no surprise you would apply the same tenets to your views on manipulating women:

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
I understand why many are unnerved by the idea of government telling women what choices they can and cannot make regarding their pregnancy.

Government has alot of say over the individual as it is. Some say too much.

Do those who want the choice to remain with the woman want her choices to be as illuminated and educated as possible?

example.

A woman at 6 months is considering abortion and the clinic reveals to the woman that according to science....there is evidence that suggests the unborn fetus may experience intense pain during the procedure.

Do we want the women who choose abortion to have all the facts available before deciding?

Can you think of any good reason to not inform the mother about new discoveries made regarding the unborn?

How about pro educated choice? It's a big decision and I think should be as educated as possible.Yes? No?

What would be wrong with a compromise where the choice will still remain with the individual woman provided she is as at least informed about the scientific facts?

Planned Parenthood would be thrilled.
Sounds more like trying to scare and shame women with specious pro-life rhetoric. The woman can make her own mind up without Christian interventionism. Fear guilt and shame are pivotal to the Christian theology, it's no surprise you would apply the same tenants to your views on manipulating women:

Christianity is based on fear
Christianity preys on the innocent
Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
Christianity breeds authoritarianism
Christianity is cruel
Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
Christianity is misogynistic
Christianity is homophobic

Maybe this is a subject where neither religion nor science can help women make a decision any easier.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I understand why many are unnerved by the idea of government telling women what choices they can and cannot make regarding their pregnancy.

Government has alot of say over the individual as it is. Some say too much.

Do those who want the choice to remain with the woman want her choices to be as illuminated and educated as possible?

example.

A woman at 6 months is considering abortion and the clinic reveals to the woman that according to science....there is evidence that suggests the unborn fetus may experience intense pain during the procedure.

Do we want the women who choose abortion to have all the facts available before deciding?

Can you think of any good reason to not inform the mother about new discoveries made regarding the unborn?

How about pro educated choice? It's a big decision and I think should be as educated as possible.Yes? No?

What would be wrong with a compromise where the choice will still remain with the individual woman provided she is as at least informed about the scientific facts?

Planned Parenthood would be thrilled.

Good point, Bartikus.

Doctors have an ethical duty to provide complete medical information to patients before a procedure.

In the case of an abortion, that information regarding the status of the unborn should include heartbeat, brainwave activity and a sonogram.

But abortionists prey upon the woman's fear and ignorance.

Planned Parenthood does not want to provide medical information, they want the woman or the young girl scared and in the dark so that they can continue to generate a profit. Abortion is a profit center and they don't want to lose it.

There is not a single reason why abortionists should not have to provide this information to the woman.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote

Quote:

I understand why many are unnerved by the idea of government telling women what choices they can and cannot make regarding their pregnancy.

I supppose technically it is correct to say that if certain laws are passed, the government would presume to tell women who choices they can and cannot make regarding their pregnancy.

I, however, personally prefer to look at it from the standpoint that the government can and should tell people what they can and cannot do regarding their kids. Parents should be able to choose the values they teach to their kids, the religion in which the children will be instructed, the school they attend, the clothes they will wear, the food they will eat, etc. etc. etc.

There are of course rare occasions that a parent must decide to 'pull the plug' when there is no hope, etc., but as a general rule it is more than reasonable that government will not allow parents to choose whether the child will receive proper nutrition, clothing, shelter, education; or whether the child will be innoculated against certain diseases or be educated. Certainly the government will not allow the parent to choose to damage or injure the child or to end his/her life.

When the prolifer looks at the not yet born baby as a human life, it is not unreasonable to expect that the parent be required to have the same concern for him/her that the parent is required to have for the children that are old enough to have been born.

The only defense for the pro-unrestricted-abortion rights people against that logic is to pronounce the unborn baby to be subhuman and unworthy of our concern. If that is the case then, it would be illogical for the law to protect the unborn baby against assault and battery, to require insurance companies to provide prenatal care--(covering an abortion should be sufficient)--to push for maternity leave or other certain company benefits, etc. All those provisions do allow for the reality that a human life, separate from the mother, is at stake.

Surely there is some way to achieve a general consensus that would at least provide reasonable choices and protection for women without prematurely ending the lives of all those millions of unborn babies.

0 Replies

I was told by chumly to exempt my holier than thou preaching from the discussions regarding this subject earlier in this discussion and decided to stick with scientific observations that have been made regarding the unborn.

When I did this it was considered to be Christian Interventionism.

Who would ever have thought that pointing out scientific evidences would be considered.......Christian Intervention.

How can it be considered Christian Intervention to point out scientific evidence and yet this statement hold true?

"Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific".

If a person does not want women to know the scientific discoveries that have been made regarding the unborn and blow it off as Christian or pro life propaganda/rhetoric.......are they not the ones being.......

anti-intellectual and anti-scientific?

Is this really a pro choice position?

I'm confused.....and tired of even trying to understand.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I was told by chumly to exempt my holier than thou preaching from the discussions regarding this subject earlier in this discussion and decided to stick with scientific observations that have been made regarding the unborn.

When I did this it was considered to be Christian Interventionism.

Who would ever have thought that pointing out scientific evidences would be considered.......Christian Intervention.

How can it be considered Christian Intervention to point out scientific evidence and yet this statement hold true?

"Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific".

1) Where precisely are your so-called "scientific observations"?
2) Where is the unbiased third party general accepted scientific consensus?
3) Once you have established the two above criteria, where is your logic to show the rationale of the use of this scientific conclusion in the methodology appropriate to the circumstance?

I certainly did not say that your so-called "scientific observations" were Christian Interventionism. Show me where I said your so-called "scientific observations" were Christian Interventionism. Here is what I actually said

Chumly wrote:

The woman can make her own mind up without Christian interventionism.

And that was referenced by your idea that

Bartikus wrote:

she is as at least informed about the scientific facts.

0 Replies

Chumly writes

Quote:

Nearly 500 years ago Martin Luther, in his Table Talk, stated: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." The opposite is also true

It would be more prudent to put Luther into his proper context if you want to use him to support your opinion.

Luther said:

Quote:

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. Martin Luther (1483-1546), Table Talk [1569

]

This is quite different than the way you used his words, don't you think?

What did Luther mean by this? In his own words he meant the following:

Quote:

If God promises something, then faith must fight a long and bitter fight, for reason or the flesh judges that God's promises are impossible. Therefore faith must battle against reason and its doubts. The Devil, too, approaches us with promises, and indeed such as seem very plausible. It certainly requires at times a keen mind rightly to distinguish between God's true and the Devil's false promises. The promises of the Devil are seemingly very pleasant and acceptable.

Faith is something that is busy, powerful and creative, though properly speaking, it is essentially an enduring than a doing. It changes the mind and heart. While reason holds to what is present, faith apprehends the things that are not seen. Contrary to reason, faith regards the invisible things as already materialized. This explains why faith, unlike hearing is not found in many, for only few believe, while the great majority cling to the things that are present and can be felt and handled rather than to the Word.

What does this have to do with abortion? Nothing. Not all prolifers are even religious. All do, however, have a deep sense of the value of life.

Where Luther and prolifers, religious and nonreligious aliike, agree is in the sense that what is right now is not all that will be. A person's immediate circumstances should not be the only criteria for decision making because what is right now is only temporal. Prolifers have faith in the potential of a new life and do not use reason based only on what is known at the moment to dictate its fate.

0 Replies

I think Bart can answer for himself.

0 Replies

I should have began my writing saying it seems to be or sounds like......

There is a clear difference between what something seems to be or sounds like and what is.

I apologize for not indicating my post as such.

I apologize for not recognizing your post as indicating such.

0 Replies

No worries, it's always interesting chatting with you Smile

0 Replies

Interesting poll

Quote:

The poll found a majority of respondents on 16 of the 20 questions took an anti-abortion position, including:

- Parental notification laws that were recently upheld by the Supreme
Court (55% support for girls 18 yrs. & younger; 69% for girls 16 yrs.
old & younger; only 36% and 23% disagree respectively)

- Abortion ends a human life (59% agree; 29% disagree)

- The prohibition of federal funds for abortions abroad (69% agree with
the prohibition; 21% disagree)

- Abortion because of the sex of the fetus (86% agree should be illegal;
10% disagree should be illegal)

- Requiring insurance plans to cover abortions where the life of the
mother is not endangered (56% disagree with such a requirement; 12%
agree)

- When life begins (50% believe it begins at conception; 19% believe life
begins at birth)

- A new federal partial-birth abortion bill (50% want to see another
bill; 39% don't want to see another bill)

- Requiring counseling about a mother's options before undergoing an
abortion (55% agree with such a counseling requirement; 37% disagree)

- A 24-hour waiting period (56% agree with waiting period; 37% disagree)

- Federal & state financing of abortions for poor women (51% disagree
with financing; 37% disagree)

- Laws that charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with two murders
(64% agree with such laws; 23% disagree)

from http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=166794

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know