When Does Life Begin?

Cyracuz wrote:

What part of the question do you not understand RL.

There is no maybe. There is CERTAIN death if you chose to save the people. This is a hypothetical scenario, and in that scenario you will not survive if you help those in danger.

Now, would you help, in that scenario?

Perhaps I do not follow your scenario because you have not provided details.

Exactly how have I come to know in this scenario that I will be able to save 50 people, but that I would 'certainly' die?

If you want to follow up on this with details, put them in a new thread and we'll have a discussion there so as not to derail this discussion, which is about when life begins involuntarily through abortion, not about when life is voluntarily sacrificed to save others.

Unfortunately for you, I have not used religious arguments in stating my pro-life position.

I use medical facts.

You dearly wish I would base my position upon my religion, but there is no need to do so.

Nat Henthoff, an atheist and well known writer , has said one need only be able to read a biology textbook to become pro-life, and I agree.

real life wrote:

Unfortunately for you, I have not used religious arguments in stating my pro-life position.

Unfortunately for you, you have, because you make a theological claim that a human life begins at the moment of sperm and egg union. Oh I forgot, it's against your rules for me to refer to any other thread or post except the ones approved by you, so in all the other threads and posts where you assert your specious claims of religiosity, I must by default dismiss them simply because you say so.

real life wrote:

Nat Henthoff, an atheist and well known writer , has said one need only be able to read a biology textbook to become pro-life, and I agree.

So you are throwing your lot in with a, jazz critic / columnist for the Village Voice? This cracks me up! Do you agree with his views on jazz too?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LAST YEAR, while I was teaching at Princeton University on the politics of journalism, a lot of class time was devoted to a debate on the appointment of Princeton's very first full-time tenured professor of bioethics, Peter Singer.

An Australian, Singer was a principal founder of the animal-liberation movement and is a former president of the International Association of Bioethics. What led to our discussion in class -- and to various protests outside the university against his appointment, which starts this month -- is that he is also an advocate of infanticide............Professor Singer often claims that his views have been misquoted, so I am quoting directly from his books.

From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Ever more mind numbingly inane would be to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious giigersih referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. What a nightmare that would be!

Chumly wrote:

Ever more mind numbingly inane would be to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious gibberish referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. What a nightmare that would be!

Can't back up your claim, eh?

Should be easy, if it was true.

Henthoff, writing about partial birth abortion:

Quote:

The doctor must then crush the skull, removing its "intracranial contents," thereby killing the patient.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Ever more mind numbingly inane would be to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious gibberish referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. What a nightmare that would be!

Can't back up your claim, eh?

Should be easy, if it was true.

Another hint: Your support of ID embraces a delineation of a human being (false though it is).

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons...........the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Ever more mind numbingly inane would be to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious gibberish referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. What a nightmare that would be!

Can't back up your claim, eh?

Should be easy, if it was true.

Another hint: Your support of ID embraces a delineation of a human being (false though it is).

Quote something where I have used a 'theological claim' to support my pro-life view, Chumly.

My views on creation have never been used to support my pro-life view. If you think they have, ( and you have claimed so ) then prove it.

Chumly, do you agree with Singer's view?

Peter Singer, infanticide advocate wrote:

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons...........the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Ever more mind numbingly inane would be to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious gibberish referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. What a nightmare that would be!

Can't back up your claim, eh?

Should be easy, if it was true.

Another hint: Your support of ID embraces a delineation of a human being (false though it is).

Quote something where I have used a 'theological claim' to support my pro-life view, Chumly.

My views on creation have never been used to support my pro-life view. If you think they have, ( and you have claimed so ) then prove it.

You tell me what ID means if not in part to define what a human being is.

Then you tell me how this definition of a human being does not affect your anti-choice position. This might be entertaining if nothing else!

real life wrote:

Chumly, do you agree with Singer's view?

Peter Singer, infanticide advocate wrote:

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons...........the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee

Are you claming Peter Singer advocates infanticide?

Chumly, do you agree with Singer's view?

Peter Singer, infanticide advocate wrote:

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons...........the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee