edgarblythe wrote:A baby has a right to life. An insufficiently developed fetus has no rights.
Entirely depends on who sets the 'rights'.
Unless you think 'rights' exist as some immutable standard enacted by (?) (which I don't think you do)
Has no rights to avoid being aborted in the USA, 2006.
Doktor S is right; what is determined to be a "life" is defined by laws. We also know that "laws" are not always correct justice - all subjectively defined.
You have to draw a line somewhere in every law or moral question. A growing fetus and a developed baby are separate, the fetus being the woman's decision to carry or not.
Chaplin wrote:Doktor S, The hypocrisy is so evident when these folks wish to impose their religious beliefs to all of society when they completely ignore the living and killings going on - some of which you identified.
They continue to argue for a fetus that's inside a private woman/girl - to which they wish to impose their religious beliefs, and ignore all the people already living and breathing. they are so confused, they can't keep their ethics, logic and common sense straight! If they are "really" concerned about life, there are plenty of issues of the living they can expend their efforts - such as the homeless and starving. "Right to life" is an oxymoron if they ignore the living.
What makes you so certain that those who oppose abortion are the same as those who "completely ignore the living and killings going on", as you specified? And what relevancy does their existence have to the subject of abortion?
I suggest bookmarking this link after you look up the definition of red herring:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html
edgarblythe wrote:You have to draw a line somewhere in every law or moral question. A growing fetus and a developed baby are separate, the fetus being the woman's decision to carry or not.
You are quite right, edgar. Where to draw the line is the knotty question.
I suggest it should be the decision of the fetus.
Of course, we might have to wait until the fetus is able to articulate an intelligible response.
We are just going in circles. Have a good one, folks.
Thanks for the ride, edgar.
Chaplin wrote:Doktor S, The hypocrisy is so evident when these folks wish to impose their religious beliefs to all of society[...]
To my religious compadres (you know who you are)--
I beg you to refrain from injecting your religiosity when arguing against those who don't give a crap about it. You don't need religion to prove your point, anyway. It only gives them an opportunity to ridicule and further avoid the questions that matter.
I agree with you echi.
There is, however, a strong correlation between religiosity and anti-choice sentiment (despite RL's attempt to separate the two)
Some of the reasons for that could include.....
...a mistrust of medical and scientific thought...
...belief in a "soul" that is gained at some point(?) and lost at when a foetus is aborted (through miscarriage or abortion)...(no doubt assisted by the Catholic Church issuing a decree to that effect)
...belief that one's life is not one's own, but belongs to deity....
...an impractical, romantic approach to world...ie, trusting in feelings more than in facts.
As much as I would like to, I don't think you can separate the two completely, as eventually it comes down to morality of each individual in the argument, and the source (real or imagined) of that morality.
No, it comes down to the medical status of the unborn.
Can it be shown beyond reasonable doubt that abortion is not the extermination of a living human being?
If it cannot, then the benefit of the doubt should favor the preservation of the unborn, not it's reckless destruction.
A Google search of the terms
abortion guilt feelings, reveals over 1.25 million results; many of them have nothing to do with religion. If the fetus is a thing to be discarded, why does abortion produce feelings of guilt? Could it be that we bear a genetic understanding of the value of human life which cannot be trumped by legislation or free choice hyperbole?
echi wrote
Quote:To my religious compadres (you know who you are)--
I beg you to refrain from injecting your religiosity when arguing against those who don't give a crap about it. You don't need religion to prove your point, anyway. It only gives them an opportunity to ridicule and further avoid the questions that matter.
This is a spirituality and religion forum...
kate4christ03 wrote:echi wrote
Quote:To my religious compadres (you know who you are)--
I beg you to refrain from injecting your religiosity when arguing against those who don't give a crap about it. You don't need religion to prove your point, anyway. It only gives them an opportunity to ridicule and further avoid the questions that matter.
This is a spirituality and religion forum...
Yeah, I thought about that before posting. But, so what? My point is still valid. You won't convince anyone of your position by relying on the Holy Word of the Almighty.
I have to say thats true, if someone thinks your religion is a complete load, then i dont think theyll take a couple bible verses and some cleshade speculation to change there view on something.
true i see y'alls point but then i must ask, why do they come in here if not to hear or debate about spirituality and religion....thats about as silly as if i were to go to the law forum ask a question then refuse to hear any answer that includes the law in it.........
echi wrote:kate4christ03 wrote:echi wrote
Quote:To my religious compadres (you know who you are)--
I beg you to refrain from injecting your religiosity when arguing against those who don't give a crap about it. You don't need religion to prove your point, anyway. It only gives them an opportunity to ridicule and further avoid the questions that matter.
This is a spirituality and religion forum...
Yeah, I thought about that before posting. But, so what? My point is still valid. You won't convince anyone of your position by relying on the Holy Word of the Almighty.
You seem so absolutely, positively, 100% dyed in the wool certain. Your faith is amazing.
That's true. So, maybe those of us who are not religionists should stay out of the discussion. That makes sense. What do you think?
kate4christ03 wrote:true i see y'alls point but then i must ask, why do they come in here if not to hear or debate about spirituality and religion....thats about as silly as if i were to go to the law forum ask a question then refuse to hear any answer that includes the law in it.........
Most likely 1 of 2 reasons.
1 - They are open and want to explore new and exciting ways to an eternal future.
2 - They are rabble rousers who want to feel superior.
What? I don't get it, Intrepid.
