Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

The present point for abortion is viability.

The present point for citizenship is birth.

When they get a soul is completely up for grabs.

0 Replies

As soon as someone shows me there is such a thing as a soul, we'll discuss the "when".

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The present point for abortion is viability.

What is so different about the unborn 1 hour or 1 day before the date designated as marking viability that he/she can be destroyed with no compunction?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
The present point for abortion is viability.

What is so different about the unborn 1 hour or 1 day before the date designated as marking viability that he/she can be destroyed with no compunction?

I don't think 1 hour or 1 day makes that much of a difference. You need a larger time difference in order to be able to see any difference that can justify destruction with no social consequences.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
The present point for abortion is viability.

What is so different about the unborn 1 hour or 1 day before the date designated as marking viability that he/she can be destroyed with no compunction?

I don't think 1 hour or 1 day makes that much of a difference. You need a larger time difference in order to be able to see any difference that can justify destruction with no social consequences.

You are correct Wolf.

This is the question I will ask any. And I caution you ahead of time, it IS a trick question.

Pick a point in the development of the unborn at which the unborn, in your opinion, is worthy of protection. As parados did you may start with 'viability' (however and whenever you define it).

Then ask yourself, 'what is so different about the unborn at this chosen point as compared with 1 day earlier?' What has happened during that 24 hours to make the unborn worthy of protection now but not worthy a day before?

If that cannot be answered then you must logically move your date back a notch. Now ask again, 'what is so different ........?'

It soon becomes apparent that there is no 'magic line' to be crossed during the development of the unborn that makes him suddenly 'a human being' when he wasn't the day before.

So by what logical basis is he not worthy of protection at any stage of development?

0 Replies

Well we have to draw a line somewhere.

Take for example, the drinking age (18 where I live). The reason they make it 18 years and not a day earlier, is because the fact that if they allowed people to start drinking a few days earlier, there would be no line defining how much earlier they can start. If we did make this line, it would just replace the original line.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Well we have to draw a line somewhere.

Take for example, the drinking age (18 where I live). The reason they make it 18 years and not a day earlier, is because the fact that if they allowed people to start drinking a few days earlier, there would be no line defining how much earlier they can start. If we did make this line, it would just replace the original line.

OK, draw the line at conception.

Life should be protected after conception.

0 Replies

I say we weigh up the pros & cons, get some professional advice and make an informed decision ..... or we could just agree with real life...hmmm tough call......

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I say we weigh up the pros & cons, get some professional advice and make an informed decision ..... or we could just agree with real life...hmmm tough call......

I have previously linked to documents from two physicians' groups which stated that the unborn is a patient. They do not regard the unborn as a 'lump of protoplasm' or 'a potential human'. So why don't you agree with them? Your position is based on politics, not medicine.

0 Replies

No it's not. The majority medical opinion supports the status quo on abortion. Two doctors could be found to support almost anything.

Support for your position comes from the "right" and the "church". Certainly not from "medicine"

(oh, and as you well know, my position is based on "medicine" for girls/women, not politics)

0 Replies

I agree with real life. Conception is the point in which the human being starts to develop.

0 Replies

That's nice. As long it remains a minority opinion and not law, I'm happy for us all. Smile

0 Replies

Viability is an EASY one to answer the question of 1 day...

Viability means the fetus can survive outside the womb. One day earlier means they can't survive. End of story. Simple and easy.

In reality the viable time period is such that many can't survive even after that date. So why not move it back a day or two to the point all survive? Since you want to play the one day game.

By the way, I know several veterinarians that consider cats and dogs to be patients. Does that make a pet have the same rights as a human?

Your one day game is a stupid game by the way real life. The legal standard is set for many things based on an arbitrary time line, driving, voting, serving in the military, starting school, being able to be drafted in for the NBA. There is a very large legal precedent that would have to be broken to even use the one day argument in court.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I say we weigh up the pros & cons, get some professional advice and make an informed decision ..... or we could just agree with real life...hmmm tough call......

I have previously linked to documents from two physicians' groups which stated that the unborn is a patient. They do not regard the unborn as a 'lump of protoplasm' or 'a potential human'. So why don't you agree with them? Your position is based on politics, not medicine.

No it's not. The majority medical opinion supports the status quo on abortion. Two doctors could be found to support almost anything.

Support for your position comes from the "right" and the "church". Certainly not from "medicine"

(oh, and as you well know, my position is based on "medicine" for girls/women, not politics)

I didn't say two doctors.

I said two physicians' groups -- The American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

You have cited no medical evidence to support your opinion -- just twisted reasoning about how if someone died while attempting something illegal, then that is a good argument for making the activity legal. Should we apply that to other illegal activities as well?

Your position is a political one, not based on medicine.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Viability is an EASY one to answer the question of 1 day...

Viability means the fetus can survive outside the womb. One day earlier means they can't survive. End of story. Simple and easy.

In reality the viable time period is such that many can't survive even after that date. So why not move it back a day or two to the point all survive? Since you want to play the one day game.

By the way, I know several veterinarians that consider cats and dogs to be patients. Does that make a pet have the same rights as a human?

Your one day game is a stupid game by the way real life. The legal standard is set for many things based on an arbitrary time line, driving, voting, serving in the military, starting school, being able to be drafted in for the NBA. There is a very large legal precedent that would have to be broken to even use the one day argument in court.

The other arbitrary time line standards that you are referring to do not end the life of a human being, so I don't think they are applicable.

Since you have not specified a day that marks 'viability', your 'legal standard' argument is little more than a case-by-case opinion at this point.

When exactly is viability in your view?

Also, if a baby is full term but still cannot survive outside the womb, is that a good rationale for killing it?

0 Replies

That last question is pretty stupid. If the baby were term, and delivered, and could not survive outside the womb, it would die. You're so wrapped up in your own doctrinal idiocy that you seem incapable of coherence.

0 Replies

Real

Your God of the Bible had no respect for fetuses. He had them killed by the thousands.

So if we should follow God's lead because he is so perfect....................

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That last question is pretty stupid. If the baby were term, and delivered, and could not survive outside the womb, it would die. You're so wrapped up in your own doctrinal idiocy that you seem incapable of coherence.

I thought it was fairly apparent that I was speaking of proactively killing the child due to a perception that he/she would not survive anyway.

But if I didn't make it clear, that is what I meant. Sorry about that.

0 Replies

Viability is achieved sometime between the 24th and the 28th week.

Viability is decided on a case by case basis, according to the Supreme court, with the Dr. and the woman making the decision.

When is the exact date of conception? When you can answer that one as precisely as you demand we answer viability then we can discuss your "one day" idea.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Pick a point in the development of the unborn at which the unborn, in your opinion, is worthy of protection. As parados did you may start with 'viability' (however and whenever you define it).

Very well. I choose the point where the nerves develop. 1 day earlier means that the nerves haven't developed and so any destruction will not be felt by the foetus. The day after means the foetus will. Surely it is cruel that can feel pain?

Anything before... well... Nature doesn't think highly of anything before. So, assuming God exists and that he created the Laws of Nature, that means he doesn't think too highly of anything before that time period either.

0 Replies

Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know