NationStates Jolt Archive

Clear and well said. I'd disagree on a few of the finer points, but find this a fairly reasonable position, given the current legal situation. My position is more of an ideal rather than working within the framework of current legal positions.
Well, if I wanted to be idealistic, I'd ban abortion when used as birth control. Of course, it would be legal in cases of medical distress, rape or incest. My ideal would be that people take the ultimate personal responsibility for their actions regarding sex and pregnancy.

To be blunt: if they don't want to take the chance of having a child...they need to keep their pants on. ;)

So, to summarise the rights we have to take into consideration in this very sticky subject:

1) The right of the man to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child he has helped conceive.
2) The right of the woman to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child she has helped conceive.
3) The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body.
4) The right of the unborn child.

I used numbers just to clarify the points, not to create a hierarchy. I really can't say which rights trump the others. I think rights 1 and 2 are equal. The only concession I'll make is that I think the woman's right to make decisions about her body supercede the man's rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. I'm undecided about the rest of it. ESPECIALLY in terms of women who abuse drugs or alcohol, or in other ways (aside from abortion) affect the development of their unborn children.

First things first, the fetus is not a person, has never been a person, and therefore has no rights. (We will have opposing views on this, but my opinion won't change, so don't argue with me on this.)

Here is how I see it, in terms of rights and responsibilities:

1: The man and the woman have sex. They take mutual responsibility for their actions by having sex.
2: The pregnancy occurs. The man is as responsible for the pregnancy as the woman.
3: The woman has the right to decide whether to have the child, the man has an equal right. He declares within a reasonable time his intentions to accept parental responsibilities. The decision then goes to the mother to accept parental rights.
4: If neither want to accept parental responsibilities, the solution is simple, the fetus is aborted.
5: If the man decides he will not accept parental responsibilities, the mother can decide to continue to have the child, but accepts full responsibility for it.
6: If the man declares that he will assume the parental responsibilities and the mother accepts, congratulations, we have a baby.
7: If the man declares that he will assume the parental responsibilities, but the mother declines, the baby will be aborted. Unfortunately for the father, the mother is necessary for the production of a viable baby, and so her consent is necessary.

A woman should not abort a baby if the father doesn't want her to. They had sex together, so it should be a mutual decision. It doesn't matter if its her body - she shouldn't have taken the risk of having sex if she wasn't prepared for it.

A woman should not abort a baby if the father doesn't want her to. They had sex together, so it should be a mutual decision. It doesn't matter if its her body - she shouldn't have taken the risk of having sex if she wasn't prepared for it.

She should deeply consider it, but in the end no one should be able to tell her what to do with her body. Otherwise it would be slave labor. (bad pun)

She shouldn't be able to kill her father's baby if he doesn't want her to either.

First things first, the fetus is not a person, has never been a person, and therefore has no rights. (We will have opposing views on this, but my opinion won't change, so don't argue with me on this.)

Don't tell anyone, but we actually agree on this point. Except that, if the mother chooses to give birth to the child, she shouldn’t be affecting the growth and development of that child with drugs and alcohol, although I don’t advocate making that a legal issue.

what alot of you are missing here is not all pregnacies happen by choice

not all women have sex by choice

what about pregnacey as a result of rape?

what about pregnacey in the case of someone who has been repsonsible and used a reliable form of contraceptive?

all this 'if you dont want to get pregnant keep your pants on' is trash

I adore my partner and we have a very close and stable relationship - we have been together a fair amount of time now (years rather than months), we both have children from a previous marriage so do not want anymore, are you suggesting I shouldn't have sex with the man I love, adore and who is my soul mate? We practise safe sex but accidents DO happen, no contraception is 100% fail safe (even vasectomy) except a full hysterctomy (which sorry I am not undergoing major invasive surgery 'just in case' I get pregnant)

sorry but where he is concerned I am NOT going to keep my pants on as a sexual relationship is one of the most sacred and intimate ways of sharing our bond of love - if I did fall pregnant we have discussed and agreed that abortion would be the way to go rather then having a child we dont want, cant afford and which if we were to go full time with we would feel honor bound to struggle to raise to the detriment of the 3 children we already have between us rather than offer up for adoption having seen just how crap the foster and adoption system really is

I was also told when I had my son via emergency C Section that another pregnancy could easily kill me so that kinda figures into our decision as well

She shouldn't be able to kill her father's baby if he doesn't want her to either.
What you've actually just said is,

She shouldn't be able to kill herself or her siblings if her father doesn't want her to :p

She shouldn't be able to kill her father's baby if he doesn't want her to either.

While the fetus is killed, it is more or less an abandoning of the fetus. Were the woman to cease her pregnancy by inducing birth, the fetus would die anyways. Killing the fetus makes extraction easier and avoids leaving the fetus to whither away outside of the womb.

Don't tell anyone, but we actually agree on this point. Except that, if the mother chooses to give birth to the child, she shouldn’t be affecting the growth and development of that child with drugs and alcohol, although I don’t advocate making that a legal issue.

It'll be our little secret. ;)

Actually, I was pretty sure that you were pro-choice, I was addressing all posters who might be reading my post with that we.

And I agree with you completely. The mother, by accepting parental rights, gains responsibility for the health of the baby while pregnant. I believe that prosecution should be brought on women who are found to be negligent during pregnancy.

What you've actually just said is,

She shouldn't be able to kill herself or her siblings if her father doesn't want her to :p
Damn my wording. :(

While the fetus is killed, it is more or less an abandoning of the fetus. Were the woman to cease her pregnancy by inducing birth, the fetus would die anyways. Killing the fetus makes extraction easier and avoids leaving the fetus to whither away outside of the womb.
That's not the point. The point is that the father wants it to live, and he should have a part in the decision.

That's not the point. The point is that the father wants it to live, and he should have a part in the decision.

At least you could have called me "Fetus Ordination." :)

I completely agree with you, and I think everyone here will agree that the woman should treat the man's wishes as if they are equal to her own. A man can want and love a child as much as a woman does, they are just unable to give birth to one. However, if the woman does not want to go through pregnancy, the husband cannot force her to. It has to be left up to individual decision on whether to accept the responsibility.

That's not the point. The point is that the father wants it to live, and he should have a part in the decision.
He has a part: he can voice his opinion, and he can offer to carry the fetus to term himself. He cannot, under any circumstances, force another human being to carry the fetus, because he does not have any rights to another person's body.

Men and women should have exactly the same rights when it comes to ending a pregnancy; every man and woman has the right to continue or end his/her OWN pregnancy, but no right whatsoever to force another man or woman to continue or end their own.

Men and women should have exactly the same rights when it comes to ending a pregnancy; every man and woman has the right to continue or end his/her OWN pregnancy, but no right whatsoever to force another man or woman to continue or end their own.
That's the same type of argument that some use to say gays "have the same right as everyone else" when it comes to marriage.

That's the same type of argument that some use to say gays "have the same right as everyone else" when it comes to marriage.

Nice try, but no it is not.

Every competent adult is entitled to have control over his or her own body and over his or her own medical treatment.

The father and mother of an unborn child have equal rights and responsibilities in this regard.

Every competent adult has a right to marry another consenting competent adult, regardless of race or gender.

The "gays have the same right as everyone else" argument ignores the discrimination on the basis of gender.

While youre at it, don't leave out the fact that abortion has been proven to lead to cancer and heart disease. So when you look at it like that, the woman is screwed no matter what. The only option is to not get pregnant in the first place.

Abortion is medically far safer with less long-term negative health effects than pregnancy and childbirth.

Pro-life propoganda and myths notwithstanding.

I just can never understand why people think it's all right to kill a baby just because they're inconvienent. If you found a baby in the woods, would you not have a responsiblity of bringing it back to safty and nursing it to health while waiting for help? So you get pregnent by accident, you didn't plan it. You didn't plan on finding the baby in the woods, did you? Or are you willing to just ignore the baby and let it die? Caring for the life of another is a responsiblity we all share at some point in time.

I just can never understand why people think it's all right to kill a baby just because they're inconvienent. If you found a baby in the woods, would you not have a responsiblity of bringing it back to safty and nursing it to health while waiting for help? So you get pregnent by accident, you didn't plan it. You didn't plan on finding the baby in the woods, did you? Or are you willing to just ignore the baby and let it die? Caring for the life of another is a responsiblity we all share at some point in time.

People won't see it that way...

The world is messed up. They go around saying things like, “kids have to grow up so fast these days,” they have to deal with drugs and crime and everything else that they are doing these things at younger and younger ages rtc., but actually, it’s the exact reverse.

What is really going on is that the parents of these kids have never themselves grown up. They were never forced to stand up and take responsibility for their actions like their parents had to when they reached adulthood. Unlike their parents and in previous generations, when their partying ways led to errors, and they did something like get or get someone else pregnant, they (as a rule, only the exception ran off) ended up having to get married and get a job to raise the kid. They HAD to grow up, and quickly then. Their families forced them to take responsibility for someone that suddenly became more important than themselves as individuals...

But now, in the modern world, we don't have to grow up in our teens anymore, not even in our twenties, we don't have to grow up until want to because of abortions being around to ‘fix’ our mistakes. We feign remorse and then just continue to party on, ignoring our recklessness and continue in our infantile behavior. Possibly until we're well into our thirties before societal pressure begins to catch up with us and THEN we might have to grow up..

The generation in K-12 schools now is the first full generation of this type of raising, their parents were the first generation raised in the world I just described, we'll have to wait and see what happens with all of these adults who know only how to shirk responsibilities ...

But with the low of “value of life” standards being propagated around campuses and the economic lack of family savings vs. family spending rates (we spend our money before we even make it) of the average household, and the lack of families that actually teach their children anything at all about moral values outside of what they see on TV, single parent households run by over-worked and exhausted people., I can't say as I have a very good reasons to expect a good results.

I'm shocked... HOW DARE YOU SPEAK SUCH Truth?

I just can never understand why people think it's all right to kill a baby just because they're inconvienent. If you found a baby in the woods, would you not have a responsiblity of bringing it back to safty and nursing it to health while waiting for help? So you get pregnent by accident, you didn't plan it. You didn't plan on finding the baby in the woods, did you? Or are you willing to just ignore the baby and let it die? Caring for the life of another is a responsiblity we all share at some point in time.
Its not a baby before 8 weeks by English definition of the word

Nor can it think or feel
And taking it home and caring for it is hardly the same as forcing a woman to house it in HER BODY

It is a seperate entity from the mother, with a completely unique set of human DNA immediatly upon conception. It's not like it's some germ living inside the body. It is a human.
How do you know it can't think or feel? It is not an object that we can just cast aside because we don't want it.
The baby didn't ask to be housed in her body. The baby didn't ask to be conceived.
It's more than 'housing'. It's nurturing the baby. It's having it grow while the mother's body nurtures it.

It is a seperate entity from the mother, with a completely unique set of human DNA immediatly upon conception. It's not like it's some germ living inside the body. It is a human.
How do you know it can't think or feel? It is not an object that we can just cast aside because we don't want it.
The baby didn't ask to be housed in her body. The baby didn't ask to be conceived.
It's more than 'housing'. It's nurturing the baby. It's having it grow while the mother's body nurtures it.
Before that point it has no nervous system (13 or 20 week mark if I remember right) it is a physical impossibility to feel
Fine the baby did not ask to be there the mother did not ask for it to be there lets surgically remove it

Before that point it has no nervous system (13 or 20 week mark if I remember right) it is a physical impossibility to feel
Fine the baby did not ask to be there the mother did not ask for it to be there lets surgically remove it


Yes it is more then housed it is putting a massive drain on the female body that she should have every right to decide to accept or not accept

A blind person can't see. A deaf person can't hear. A mute person can't talk. They lack the proper sensory facilities. They arn't a complete human being. Why don't we kill them, since they'll never see/hear/say it's coming?

I'm a massive drain on my parents, as they pay to feed me, clothe me, educate me, etc. I guess since they both lost their jobs within the same year and since I'm such a drain, they have the right to kill me because of that?

A blind person can't see. A deaf person can't hear. A mute person can't talk. They lack the proper sensory facilities. They arn't a complete human being. Why don't we kill them, since they'll never see/hear/say it's coming?

I'm a massive drain on my parents, as they pay to feed me, clothe me, educate me, etc. I guess since they both lost their jobs within the same year and since I'm such a drain, they have the right to kill me because of that?
I didn’t say they weren’t a complete human being that was not the argument … they have NOTHING at that point no sensory perception whatsoever no mind to interpret it even if there were.

This is not a “lack” of a few special sensory features it has nothing to sense the pain with

And unlike a zygote you are not located within one of their bodies the choice to keep you or not keep you is not a decision that is based in self control of their own body

They have the choice to put you up for adoption (rare but possible) and remove the burden … the mother does not have the choice till after she has bared the brunt of the physical burden

You find a way to keep the fetus without forcing your decision on the mothers body I am all for it but baring that I would have to say mothers rights to control of her own body trumps that of a zygote/fetus

Well, the problem is, I haven't really adressed the rights of the father in terms of a woman who is pregnant with his child and CHOOSES to have an abortion against his will. That's a bit trickier, and is where I kind of lose coherence:).

I think we have to allow the girl to do just that, though... you can't prostitute another person's body to one person's desires... especially since, for the guy, his 'job' was done in the first encounter.

When guys can choose to carry the foetus, they get to choose whether it gets kept when one partner is unwilling. My thought.

A baby that has just been born can hardly see, it's motor functions are instinctual at best, it cannot reason, it cannot plan, it has hardly any cognative function whatsoever. Is it still a human?

I personally think a human life is more important than 'discomfort' (plus we are forgetting anesthetics in which the mother feels nothing). I'm not forcing my decision on a mother, unless you think saving a life as 'forcing a mother to undergo a period of discomfort'. The baby has no say in whether they live or die. period. Do we have the right to force this upon the baby?

Fathers rights, Mothers rights.... Nobody ever seems to be concerned with your control over your own body when you are the only one that is entirely without fault for being in this predicament, they don't care about your right of choice if you are the zygote/fetus anyway.

A baby that has just been born can hardly see, it's motor functions are instinctual at best, it cannot reason, it cannot plan, it has hardly any cognative function whatsoever. Is it still a human?

I personally think a human life is more important than 'discomfort' (plus we are forgetting anesthetics in which the mother feels nothing). I'm not forcing my decision on a mother, unless you think saving a life as 'forcing a mother to undergo a period of discomfort'. The baby has no say in whether they live or die. period. Do we have the right to force this upon the baby?
Yup … yes we do it has none of the nessisary ability to be considered full human life nor in the early stages have any ability to think and feel

It essentially by my opinion before nervous system development is really only considered a potential human and the mothers rights still trump

See that’s the beauty of the pro choice position it gives me that choice based on my feelings and morals to make the decision for myself (if I was female) if I want to or not … its not forcing my opinion on anyone else

Fathers rights, Mothers rights.... Nobody ever seems to be concerned with your control over your own body when you are the only one that is entirely without fault for being in this predicament, they don't care about your right of choice if you are the zygote/fetus anyway.
Not fully human … does not really have any basic human rights by my standards anyways

It's basicly a court battle, like in divorce cases. Rarely do they ever consult the kid(s) or even consider them as a human. More like an object, just like the corvette the slutty, trailer-trash wife won from the honest, hard-working father (not specificly targeting or making a statement about divorce cases).

… its not forcing my opinion on anyone else

Except for the boy/girl that was never named. Someone forced their opinion on them...

It's basicly a court battle, like in divorce cases. Rarely do they ever consult the kid(s) or even consider them as a human. More like an object, just like the corvette the slutty, trailer-trash wife won from the honest, hard-working father (not specificly targeting or making a statement about divorce cases).
I’m not quite sure the tie between the topic we were arguing and this (though incorrect find me a court case where the children’s wishes were not weighed in when both parents could support them)

Yes, but with unborn as the modifier, that would simply refer to that which will become a born infant. Which can be said of a child at conception...

I disagree with you.

About a third of concepta drop straight through without implanting. Unless god likes 'killing babies', it seems unlikely he would personally have set such an ambiguous point for the 'commencement of life'.

You would have a better argument if you were trying to say that all IMPLANTED foetuses were potential children.

I'd agree with your 'potential' argument then... although I'd still say it wasn't a 'human life' until sometime in the twentieth-ish week.

Except for the boy/girl that was never named. Someone forced their opinion on them...
Only if you consider them a person

Yup … yes we do it has none of the nessisary ability to be considered full human life nor in the early stages have any ability to think and feel

It essentially by my opinion before nervous system development is really only considered a potential human and the mothers rights still trump

See that’s the beauty of the pro choice position it gives me that choice based on my feelings and morals to make the decision for myself (if I was female) if I want to or not … its not forcing my opinion on anyone else
Wouldn't you be forcing your (fatal)opinion on the baby?
In my opinion, a baby is a baby at the moment of conception, as it is a new, unqiue specificly-human DNA. It's just in a stage of growing, just as a toddler, a teen ager, a middle ager, and an elderly person is. They all have the same basic rights. Why do we have say whether or not this person, who can't do a single thing to protect themselves, can live or die? What gives us the right? You are forcing your opinion on others. Specificly, those who cannot speak for themselves.

Not fully human … does not really have any basic human rights by my standards anyways Neither did gays, nor Jews, nor people of color or of mixed and questionable origin. They weren't all the way really human either, not to various people throughout the ages that killed them and slaughtered them and took away their human right to exist either.

I'd have to say that I'm actually little surprised you used the same defense that they did, pretty much verbatim, when they did those things to other people...

Neither did gays, nor Jews, nor people of color or of mixed and questionable origin. They weren't all the way really human either, not to various people throughout the ages that killed them and slaughtered them and took away their human right to exist either.

I'd have to say that I'm actually little surprised you used the same defense that they did, pretty much verbatim, when they did those things to other people...
The difference is one does not posess the basic biology to be fully human the other was an opinion
Just because the incorrectly claimed someone not human does not mean that claiming something that does not have the basics of a human non human is also incorrect

The difference is one does not posess the basic biology to be fully human the other was an opinion
Just because the incorrectly claimed someone not human does not mean that claiming something that does not have the basics of a human non human is also incorrect

What then is the "basic" of a human then? In your book, as you put it?

What then is the "basic" of a human then? In your book, as you put it?
Lets start with a nervous system … a system to perceive the outside world
The physical brain would be nice as well to start with

Ever seen the numbers on donations to NOW and considered how much of that goes into lobbying the pro-abortion side of the debate?

Don't see the irony?

Why would you have to lobby for something that is already legal... unless someone is putting pressure on opposing it....

So - perhaps people have to spend money to guarantee their liberties from those who would take them away...

Lets start with a nervous system … a system to perceive the outside world
The physical brain would be nice as well to start with
A fish has a nervous system and a brain, does that make it human?

Lets start with a nervous system … a system to perceive the outside world
The physical brain would be nice as well to start with
Some people can't perceive the outside world, due to a mental defect. Do they have any rights?

There's always the completely fail safe, abstinance rout. Unless of course and immaculate conception occurs, but I'd say the odds of that happening more than once in earths history are exactly 0%.

Well, there are other beings apart from humans on this world, and MANY can happily replicate without two genders present...

And, of course, others need many many more 'genders'...

But - since I suspect you are referring only to humans... it is possible for humans to reproduce parthenogenetically, also... just very unlikely.

And, since I further suspect you were talking about a specific religious event... why ignore the fact that Jesus isn't the first religious figure to have been alleged as 'born of a virgin'... and ALL have the same amount of evidence to that claim?

A fish has a nervous system and a brain, does that make it human?
Nope but an embryo at the stage I was talking does not even have those basics that even a fish has

If it has not yet rose beyond the level of fish how can it be fully human?

So, to summarise the rights we have to take into consideration in this very sticky subject:

1) The right of the man to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child he has helped conceive.
2) The right of the woman to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child she has helped conceive.
3) The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body.
4) The right of the unborn child.

I used numbers just to clarify the points, not to create a hierarchy. I really can't say which rights trump the others. I think rights 1 and 2 are equal. The only concession I'll make is that I think the woman's right to make decisions about her body supercede the man's rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. I'm undecided about the rest of it. ESPECIALLY in terms of women who abuse drugs or alcohol, or in other ways (aside from abortion) affect the development of their unborn children.

Unborn children do not, and should not, have any rights.

If for no other reason than: if you allow a foetus to claim equal legal right to anything... you can no longer justify abortion even for reasons of the possible death of the 'mother'.

Some people can't perceive the outside world, due to a mental defect. Do they have any rights?
They have some of the higher functions past that point … the zygote has not even reached that point much less surpassed it unlike most of the people you claim with mental defects

They have some of the higher functions past that point … the zygote has not even reached that point much less surpassed it unlike most of the people you claim with mental defects
You have to give it time to study up for the final, the big questions, you know, like a school semester or something. Then come back and ask it then.

If you had it your way, the teacher would hand our the final exams on the first day of class.

Functions such as what? So the zygot doesn't have much of a body to walk or do anything, but I've been to a lot of nursing homes. I've seen elderly who can't even wipe their nose without assistance. I guess you could say they are vegitative. Does that mean we have a right to kill them?

You have to give it time to study up for the final, the big questions, you know, like a school semester or something. Then come back and ask it then.

If you had it your way, the teacher would hand our the final exams on the first day of class.
Only if you were looking for the final grade (your rights) by the second day of the semester

Functions such as what? So the zygot doesn't have much of a body to walk or do anything, but I've been to a lot of nursing homes. I've seen elderly who can't even wipe their nose without assistance. I guess you could say they are vegitative. Does that mean we have a right to kill them?
Higher brain functions such as self awareness thought … any sort of perception whatsoever possibly self support to a limited extent even (though that’s not necessary a requirement)

Only if you were looking for the final grade (your rights) by the second day of the semester There you go, we'll nail those bastards before they even know if they're in the right room or not. All's fair in love and war, the newbs had it coming anyway...

Higher brain functions such as self awareness thought … any sort of perception whatsoever possibly self support to a limited extent even (though that’s not necessary a requirement)
The only thing babies, who have just been born, can do is breath, cry, and some weak muscle movements. They are completely incapable of self-support. They are hardly self-aware as well, as their vision is legally blind (they never saw anything before being born, so giving them a cane doesn't help), their hearing is almost nil, their brains can only process very very simple concepts at a time.

Well, if I wanted to be idealistic, I'd ban abortion when used as birth control. Of course, it would be legal in cases of medical distress, rape or incest. My ideal would be that people take the ultimate personal responsibility for their actions regarding sex and pregnancy.

To be blunt: if they don't want to take the chance of having a child...they need to keep their pants on. ;)

Wondered how long it would be before someone came out and said it.

The problem, my friend, is education.

Here in the lovely US of A, the government, and several local administrations, are currently trying to reverse the process of education. So - instead of making people MORE aware of the risks and dangers, the policy seems to be 'look away, maybe it'll get better on it's own'.

I live in Georgia... one of the less industrial areas of the state, and also one of the more 'fundamental'... and I was shocked and disgusted by what I found here.

First: a trip to the OB/GYN revealed a startlingly high number of very young teens. This told me straightaway that something is very wrong here.

Second: schools around here (while theoretically bound to the law of the land) teach a version of education with a 'faith-based' edge to it. One of the things about this (apart from stuff like prefacing science lessons with assertions about how wrong evolution is) is the fact that sex-ed at school is worthless.

I have talked to 'friends' of my wife who did not know if they were virgins or not.

I have talked to pregnant 'friends' who still did not know 'where babies come from'.

I have talked to 'friends' that knew they should avoid sex and drugs, but didn't know what either 'were', so they didn't know if they had done them.

Third: These youths in areas like this, are NOT equipped to deal with sex. And, when sex comes along, they are not equipped to even recognise the risks, or how they COULD combat them... like contraception.

Fourth: Girls in this area are raised taught that they must obey their husbands, even their male siblings. Basically, any male figure has an inbuilt dominance. So - I have talked to girls around here that had children they didn't want, purely because they COULD NOT say no.


It's almost like the Christian fundamentalists have decided to swell their ranks, by enforcing ignorance, and then fostering the EXACT conditions that will lead to massive teenage, unprotected intercourse.

There you go, we'll nail those bastards before they even know if they're in the right room or not. All's fair in love and war, the newbs had it coming anyway...
Naw they dident have it coming they really couldent be considered students anyways they dont meet the basic requirements so what do they care if the pass or fail the final

Interesting how you have specific requirements. So, if someone doesn't pass your 'inspection' they cannot be deemed as human? Judge and jury, hm?

I just can never understand why people think it's all right to kill a baby just because they're inconvienent. If you found a baby in the woods, would you not have a responsiblity of bringing it back to safty and nursing it to health while waiting for help? So you get pregnent by accident, you didn't plan it. You didn't plan on finding the baby in the woods, did you? Or are you willing to just ignore the baby and let it die? Caring for the life of another is a responsiblity we all share at some point in time.

No.

Oh, and your baby is made of straw... maybe it will grow up to be a real straw-man... but not yet.

Naw they dident have it coming they really couldent be considered students anyways they dont meet the basic requirements so what do they care if the pass or fail the final
Lots of students start classes because they need to take a course, any course, sometimes they think it's going to be easy, sometimes it turns out to be hard. But either way, you can't ask the student if the class is any good or not until they've take the whole course... Like I said, come back at the end of the semester and see if they pass the test.

Interesting how you have specific requirements. So, if someone doesn't pass your 'inspection' they cannot be deemed as human? Judge and jury, hm?
If they don’t meet the criteria as human why should we overrule the human rights of the mother? To me there at least has to be a basic amount of justification (such as upholding another’s HUMAN rights) to even consider overruling hers

Just because it contains human dna you decide it is a life and impose your sentence on the mother? Judge jury and executioner?

Lots of students start classes because they need to take a course, any course, sometimes they think it's going to be easy, sometimes it turns out to be hard. But either way, you can't ask the student if the class is any good or not until they've take the whole course... Like I said, come back at the end of the semester and see if they pass the test.
Ok your learning analogy is moving far enough from the base topic (such as learning curves and expectations of the student themselves) as to have no parallel with the original topic

It's basicly a court battle, like in divorce cases. Rarely do they ever consult the kid(s) or even consider them as a human. More like an object, just like the corvette the slutty, trailer-trash wife won from the honest, hard-working father (not specificly targeting or making a statement about divorce cases).

Ah yes.

All women are parasites, aren't they?

And, of course, all men are doing their best to be model fathers, husbands and employees....

Ok your learning analogy is moving far enough from the base topic (such as learning curves and expectations of the student themselves) as to have no parallel with the original topic except it takes time. The only difference between them passing your magical test of "HUMAN or NOT?" is a few more months... Just like taking a class. You can't expect to get everything done in just one day, and they need merely a bit of time.

If they don’t meet the criteria as human why should we overrule the human rights of the mother? To me there at least has to be a basic amount of justification (such as upholding another’s HUMAN rights) to even consider overruling hers

Just because it contains human dna you decide it is a life and impose your sentence on the mother? Judge jury and executioner?
I believe the criteria to be human is to be of the human speicies. That zygot does not have fish, or dog, or cat, or ape, or any other type of DNA in it. It has only one type. Human DNA.
I believe a human's rights to be inviolable. That includes the rights of the baby. Just because it can't think for it's own, you decide it is not a person and impose your death sentence on it?

Wouldn't you be forcing your (fatal)opinion on the baby?
In my opinion, a baby is a baby at the moment of conception....

Yeah, thanks for that.

At least you prefaced it with "in my opinion", which couches it with all the value that carries.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible strongly implies you are wrong, and science strongly implies that you are wrong.

But, if you want to use the 'sanctity of the conceptus' as your chain to continue the subjugation of women... well, good luck.

Ah yes.

All women are parasites, aren't they?

And, of course, all men are doing their best to be model fathers, husbands and employees....
?
Read the rest of the post. I wasn't doing any specific targeting, only using that as an example. I could've done it the other way around, but I didn't feel like it at the moment.

except it takes time. The only difference between them passing your magical test of "HUMAN or NOT?" is a few more months... Just like taking a class. You can't expect to get everything done in just one day, and they need merely a bit of time.
They may need time to develop into students but at this point they are only potential students and the school (mother) has no requirement to be forced to have their rights as a private institution to accept and spend time and money on these only potential students, anything else would be a violation of that private schools rights to help who they wish become students (once they are students they have the responsibility to let them develop) but these potential students dont meet thoes requirements yet

Yeah, thanks for that.

At least you prefaced it with "in my opinion", which couches it with all the value that carries.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible strongly implies you are wrong, and science strongly implies that you are wrong.

But, if you want to use the 'sanctity of the conceptus' as your chain to continue the subjugation of women... well, good luck.
Where does the Bible say I am wrong? Where dose science say I am wrong? Subjugation of women? I guess if we can give women the freedom to kill, then they are finally free from tyranny?

I believe the criteria to be human is to be of the human speicies. That zygot does not have fish, or dog, or cat, or ape, or any other type of DNA in it. It has only one type. Human DNA.
I believe a human's rights to be inviolable. That includes the rights of the baby. Just because it can't think for it's own, you decide it is not a person and impose your death sentence on it?
Just because YOU think that all it needs is human dna (hell sperm have human dna do they have basic human rights?) you advocate taking the womans rights away

A fish has a nervous system and a brain, does that make it human?

Where did he lose you on the "Let's start with..." part?

Where did he lose you on the "Let's start with..." part?
Yeah I was going to bring that up but I am tired lol

Yeah, thanks for that.


Unfortunately for you, the Bible strongly implies you are wrong, <snip>

Aren't you capable of stating your opinion without pretending to be able to 'change' scripture to your liking?

NIV:

Genesis 25:23
The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."

Psalm 58:3
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Psalm 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Ecclesiastes 5:15
Naked a man comes from his mother's womb, and as he comes, so he departs. He takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand.

Isaiah 49:5
And now the LORD says— he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength-

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 20:17
For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever.

Luke 1:41
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:44
As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Just because YOU think that all it needs is human dna (hell sperm have human dna do they have basic human rights?) you advocate taking the womans rights away
No. Sperm and egg have HALF Human DNA. Combined, then they make a full human DNA and a new person. This DNA set is completely unqiue, never before seen in the world.
Just because YOU think that all it needs is a fully functioning nervous system you advocate taking the potenial girl's rights away?

except it takes time. The only difference between them passing your magical test of "HUMAN or NOT?" is a few more months... Just like taking a class. You can't expect to get everything done in just one day, and they need merely a bit of time.

And yet, we humans cling very tightly to those chronologies.

Example: Fred dies on November the 6th, 2005. When should we bury Fred?

You would, most likely, argue some date AFTER November 6th, yes?

But - why? Just a few months earlier he was ALMOST dead... why not bury him then?

No. Sperm and egg have HALF Human DNA. Combined, then they make a full human DNA and a new person. This DNA set is completely unqiue, never before seen in the world.
Just because YOU think that all it needs is a fully functioning nervous system you advocate taking the potenial girl's rights away?
So we end up at the basics we both have different opinions of when human life begins me at the point where it rises above the rest of the animal family (to become something unique … human) you at conception

Pro choice puts the mothers choice first the pro life the baby over the mothers rights

Unless you can objectively prove when human life begins I would hardly say you have enough proof to over rule the well established right of the mother to do with her body as she wishes

Humans are never "...'fully-developed.' We're not born 'complete.' We grow, change, mature and age constantly, which means we're always 'developing,' and we develop though the first nine months of our lives attached to a 'host' — our mothers. So, the fact that the first nine months of our developmental life is in utero is of no consequence to our overall lifespan; it is just the first stage. There are many developmental stages — early, middle and late. But life has to begin somewhere. We don't go from 'nothing' to adulthood....It begins when it begins — at the moment a human being is biologically 'under construction'.


To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e. a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an 'ovum' or 'egg'), which simply possess 'human life', to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.


If you could only disprove human life does not start at conception.
Once concpetion occurs, there is no change in the basic structure of the zygot. It is human by default. It has a complete set of human DNA from thence forth. It will not alter to become an animal. It is purely human.
Women may do whatever the please to their bodies. But they shouldn't have the right to kill a person, no matter what the stage of life they are in.

?
Read the rest of the post. I wasn't doing any specific targeting, only using that as an example. I could've done it the other way around, but I didn't feel like it at the moment.

Not convinced, sorry.

It just fits too well with the thrust of your debate...

Let's just be blunt here.

I, and a few others here, believe in taking responsibility for our actions. Copulation is an action and has consequences and repercussions. Pregnancy being one. I'm not even going to go into STDs and auto-immune diseases. We believe that if you take the action, you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. To us, self-control is a virtue, not a virus.

The other group believes that they should be able to do whatever they want and never have to take any responsibility for any consequences that might descend from that action. They believe that, to be blunt, they should be able fuck around, indiscriminately, and to hell with the consequences. "If it feels good, do it!" Self-control is a virus to those that embrace the selfish culture of "it's all about ME! MY rights! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!"

I, personally, aspire to be better than an animal that's led around by its hormones and base instincts.

Aren't you capable of stating your opinion without pretending to be able to 'change' scripture to your liking?

Relax, take a couple of breaths...

I am not claiming to be able to twist scripture... but, for several thousand years, there has been a consensus that the moment that Adam acheived 'life' was the moment the 'breath of life' (too late at night, can't be doing with hunting the Hebrew... {{Ruach, maybe}}) was breathed into him - and that, therefore, the moment of 'life' is when the 'breath' is taken.

Thus, by scripture - a 'baby' is not 'live' until it takes it's first breathe... i.e. about 9 months AFTER it's conception.

Don't attack me because you think your interpretation better than mine... and bear in mind that I am not the only bible scholar to have ever suggested what I am suggesting here.

I have stated many opinions, even in this thread, without scripture mentioned once... so, I guess my answer must be "Yes, I am capable of stating my opinion without pretending to be able to 'change' scripture to my liking...", but, thanks for asking.

The other guy/guy-ess claimed to be able to tell when life began... I was merely pointing out that the worlds of science, and even the somewhat-fuzzier world of theology, might not agree.

Not convinced, sorry.

It just fits too well with the thrust of your debate...
Oh, I'm sorry. Advocating the right of the life of the baby over the choice of the mother to kill it is so anti-women.
Here, maybe this will help:
The useless, lazy, abusing father gains the custody of the children, as well as the corvette, over that of the caring, supportive, loving mother.
The point that I'm talking about is how we're treating these children like disposable objects.
Even my girlfriend agrees with me on this. I'm not being sexist, you are.

No. Sperm and egg have HALF Human DNA. Combined, then they make a full human DNA and a new person. This DNA set is completely unqiue, never before seen in the world.
Just because YOU think that all it needs is a fully functioning nervous system you advocate taking the potenial girl's rights away?

You are, of course, aware of two things:

One: A human body can easily have DNA that does not match the rest of the body...

Two: Human excrement also contains human DNA. Perhaps we should grant the 'right to life' to excrement? Stop people using the bathroom without spousal approval?

"You knew defecation was a risk, when you decided to eat... now you have to keep it inside you for 9 months, just in case it comes out as a lifeform"...

It is purely human.
Women may do whatever the please to their bodies. But they shouldn't have the right to kill a person, no matter what the stage of life they are in.

"Human tissue" is not equal to "person".

Unless, you beleive we should grant voting rights to skin cultures...

Let's just be blunt here.

I, and a few others here, believe in taking responsibility for our actions. Copulation is an action and has consequences and repercussions. Pregnancy being one. I'm not even going to go into STDs and auto-immune diseases. We believe that if you take the action, you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. To us, self-control is a virtue, not a virus.

The other group believes that they should be able to do whatever they want and never have to take any responsibility for any consequences that might descend from that action. They believe that, to be blunt, they should be able fuck around, indiscriminately, and to hell with the consequences. "If it feels good, do it!" Self-control is a virus to those that embrace the selfish culture of "it's all about ME! MY rights! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!"

I, personally, aspire to be better than an animal that's led around by its hormones and base instincts.

I believe in taking responsibility. I just don't believe you can legislate it.

Especially when, as i pointed out in an earlier post, all 'decisions' are not equal.

Also, of course, there is no moral reason to assert your 'morality' over another person's 'morality'... they have as much right to mess around, as you have to not mess around. And their reason is just as valid.

Personally - I believe people SHOULD control themselves, and facr up to the risk of pregnancy, and that works for ME... but I can't enforce that on others.

Of course, all these problems could be set aside, if we just chemically sterilised EVERYONE at birth, and granted limited temporary 'breeding licenses' to people ready, able, and mature enough, to breed.

You are, of course, aware of two things:

One: A human body can easily have DNA that does not match the rest of the body...

Two: Human excrement also contains human DNA. Perhaps we should grant the 'right to life' to excrement? Stop people using the bathroom without spousal approval?

"You knew defecation was a risk, when you decided to eat... now you have to keep it inside you for 9 months, just in case it comes out as a lifeform"...
1. But that DNA that does not match is not an actual part of the body, but rather an anomaly like cancer or a virus.
2.Is that DNA currently working to grow a new life? Hardly the same.

DNA is not totally about tissue. Genetics help determine personality, abilities, skills etc, to a certain extent.

I believe in taking responsibility. I just don't believe you can legislate it.
Then we agree on something.

But, the government legislates responsibility every single day. The majority of our laws are forcing some kind of responsibility on us. Mandatory insurance, forced child support, seatbelt laws, speed limits, DWI laws...I could go on for days.

What would we do about those?

Oh, I'm sorry. Advocating the right of the life of the baby over the choice of the mother to kill it is so anti-women.
Here, maybe this will help:
The useless, lazy, abusing father gains the custody of the children, as well as the corvette, over that of the caring, supportive, loving mother.
The point that I'm talking about is how we're treating these children like disposable objects.
Even my girlfriend agrees with me on this. I'm not being sexist, you are.

Of course I am...

Sure, whatever makes you happy.

1. But that DNA that does not match is not an actual part of the body, but rather an anomaly like cancer or a virus.


Not at all, the 'abberant' DNA can actually be a functioning part of the functioning body... and yet it is utterly unique and new.

By your definition, tht is a seperate lifeform.


2.Is that DNA currently working to grow a new life? Hardly the same.


No. But, your definition was the human DNA = human life argument... which is, obviously, flawed.

Not at all, the 'abberant' DNA can actually be a functioning part of the functioning body... and yet it is utterly unique and new.

By your definition, tht is a seperate lifeform.



No. But, your definition was the human DNA = human life argument... which is, obviously, flawed.
Give me a specific example of aberrant DNA as part of the body and actually helping it.
No, the DNA is all linked and working together to grow this new human.
(Not the most appealing example:) A virus is a seperate DNA from the host. It has no brain or function, yet it is reguarded as a lifeform. It is, in fact, just like a zygote, except the zygote is of human DNA. I guess since a zygote is parasitic to the host, or mother, then it's alright to kill it, not like it's human and not a virus.

A paper abortion only works if the mother is morally and intellectually ready to have an abortion.

I disagree. The mother does not have to be morally ready to have an abortion. If she is absolutely opposed, that is her choice and thus she takes on the responsibilities for her decision.

I would not have an abortion - pretty much under any circumstances. It does not fit in with my moral beliefs. However, that does not mean I would force an unwilling father into fatherhood. If the father did not want to be a father, regardless of the pregnancy, then I would walk away and never look back.

your girlfriend tells you she missed her period you are MORE than willing for her to get an abortion or to take all responsibility for the baby. once that baby is born and you SEE it, everything could change (and quite often it does, its really hard to reject your own baby)

it isnt right to expect anyone to give up rights to a baby when it is still an embryo. what seems like a horrible burden becomes the light of your life once it becomes reality.

(a) A man who chose a paper abortion would never see his child. In fact, unless he still ran in the same circles with the woman (which is unlikely as this would be more likely to come from a one-night stand sort of thing), he won't ever even know if a child has been born.

(b) This is exactly why very few men would take advantage of the paper abortion, if it were available. Those that would take advantage of it would most likely often be the type that any responsible woman wouldn't want around her child anyways.

IMO, they should never be made embryos if they aren't intended to be children. Keep the sperm and egg seperate until that commitment is made.

Ok, so no in vitro fertilization then.

By the way, the commitment to have a child is made. The problem is that multiple embryos must be made and an attempt to implant them made. Generally, one or maybe two actually implant.

Of course, in the scheme of things, that isn't much different from the natural process, where at least 50% of fertilzed eggs never make it to be born.

But now, in the modern world, we don't have to grow up in our teens anymore, not even in our twenties, we don't have to grow up until want to because of abortions being around to ‘fix’ our mistakes. We feign remorse and then just continue to party on, ignoring our recklessness and continue in our infantile behavior. Possibly until we're well into our thirties before societal pressure begins to catch up with us and THEN we might have to grow up..

This is bullshit, and you know it. The vast majority of people who have mistakes, whether they choose abortion or not, are far more careful from then on out. Whether a woman chooses to carry to term and keep the child, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion, it is a difficult choice and not one she wants to have to make again. As such, those who make the choice, whether we agree with their choice or not, grow up damn fast - and generally get away from whatever behaviors caused the mistake (ie. not using birth control, promiscuous sex, etc.)

The idea of lots of women out there having abortion after abortion is a myth.

and the lack of families that actually teach their children anything at all about moral values outside of what they see on TV,

Of course, what you meant to say here was "lack of families that teach their children my personal morals." There are very few parents out there who don't teach their children their own morals. The fact that you disagree with those morals is irrelevant.

Aren't you capable of stating your opinion without pretending to be able to 'change' scripture to your liking?

None of your scripture demonstrates that life begins at conception, only that it begins in the womb - something no one here is really debating. You will find that very few people who are pro-choice believe that an elective abortion should be allowed up until the point of birth.

Meanwhile, Exodus 21 explicitly states that the life of the unborn is worth less than the life of the born:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Give me a specific example of aberrant DNA as part of the body and actually helping it.

The majority of the cells in your body have different DNA from all the rest. Do you have rampant cancer?

(Not the most appealing example:) A virus is a seperate DNA from the host. It has no brain or function, yet it is reguarded as a lifeform. It is, in fact, just like a zygote, except the zygote is of human DNA. I guess since a zygote is parasitic to the host, or mother, then it's alright to kill it, not like it's human and not a virus.

Actually, a virus is not considered a lifeform by most biologists. It does not meet all the requirements to be deemed as life.

A bacteria, however, is a lifeform. We don't have any problems doing away with it, however.

A tapeworm is a lifeform - and we have no problems doing away with that.

Do I think an embryo is morally comparable to a bacteria or a tapeworm? No. But some do, and my own religious and moral beliefs are my only reason for feeling the way I do - and thus are not something I would attempt to force on another.

Well, if I wanted to be idealistic, I'd ban abortion when used as birth control. Of course, it would be legal in cases of medical distress, rape or incest. My ideal would be that people take the ultimate personal responsibility for their actions regarding sex and pregnancy.

To be blunt: if they don't want to take the chance of having a child...they need to keep their pants on. ;)

That sounds about like my position though I'd have to work on a clear definition for medical distress.

Just for the record, I don't contribute funds to stopping abortions. I speak against it whenever appropriate... How about the money spent on defending abortion and abortions themselves... just think of what we could do with that...

Pay for the medical care of women who attempt abortions themselves or who have back alley abortions from people who aren't qualified to do them and perform them in unsterile conditions?

Pay for the medical care of women who attempt abortions themselves or who have back alley abortions from people who aren't qualified to do them and perform them in unsterile conditions?

Individuals who do this should be prosecuted for murder anyway. Yes, they should receive medical attention, but I have very little sympathy for someone who is suffering for having murdered someone else...

Give me a specific example of aberrant DNA as part of the body and actually helping it.
No, the DNA is all linked and working together to grow this new human.
(Not the most appealing example:) A virus is a seperate DNA from the host. It has no brain or function, yet it is reguarded as a lifeform. It is, in fact, just like a zygote, except the zygote is of human DNA. I guess since a zygote is parasitic to the host, or mother, then it's alright to kill it, not like it's human and not a virus.

Let me get back to you on that, I have lost my link.

However, just to keep you going.... mtDNA is different in that it has only about 30,000 bonded pairs, I believe...

Interesting how you have specific requirements. So, if someone doesn't pass your 'inspection' they cannot be deemed as human? Judge and jury, hm?

<sigh>

I bet you have "special requirements" of your own. Some of us have ones that are well-reasoned.

Pray tell, why should I recognize another beings right to life?

By what criteria do I tell whether something has a right to life?

What separates those things that I cannot kill except under special circumstances like self-defense and those things I can kill for pleasure or food?

You act as "judge and jury" regarding the life of things everday. The question is whether one does so in a rational manner.

All this crap about "sluts" and "keeping her pants on" is ignorant and misogynist. Perhaps some facts will wake some of you people up.

Almost half of all women in the United States have had at least one abortion by the time they reach age 45

More than half (54%) of women who have abortions were using a contraceptive method when they became pregnant.

Only 8% of women that have abortions have never used a method of birth control: nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, and/or poorly educated.

Inceased use and improved effectiveness of contraceptives are the primary cause of the declining rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the U.S.

Each year, at least 10,000-15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies resulted from rape or incest.

A majorty -- over 60% -- of women having abortions have been mothers. They already have had one more more child!

Poor and low-income women account for over one-half of abortions.

Almost 90% of abortions in the US are performed in the first trimesters of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks).

More than half are performed duing the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.

Abortions are increasingly performed earlier and earlier during pregnancy.

Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

About 0.08% are performed at 24 weeks or beyond.

More than half (52%) of women having abortions have had no prior abortion. 61% have had a prior birth.

If a sexually active woman were to use abortion as her means of birth control and she wanted two children, she would have about 30 abortions by the time she reached age 45.

Use of abortion as a primary method of birth control is not common. If it were so, the large majority of abortions would be repeat abortions.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

where have you been, cat-tribe? ive had to argue LEGAL RIGHTS for gods sake. thats YOUR job not mine.

if you read the thread through its only toward the end that the trolls started eating it up. we tried our best to ignore them but its like trying to ignore cancer.

you are our chemotherapy. go for it!

How should these be divided between the mother and father?
The Mother should get the bottle of Gin, and the Father the coat hanger.

<snip> statistics achieved by 'asking' women who are already under extreme stress and just about to get an abortion, to answer questions regarding their 'responsible' behavior <snip>

1. Ma'am, have you ever had an abortion before?
A: Me? Oh God no, of course not!

2. Ma'am, were you and your partner using any form of birth control?
A: *pause* uhem, Um, yes, of course... yes, yes,

3. Ma'am, do you believe exit polls are an accurate gauge for determining private human behavior where they can lie with no consequences and they don’t want to be shamed even one on one with a stranger they think will have strong feelings about their answers?
A: Why Yes! Yes I do, very strongly I do, what reason would we have to lie in nameless poll taking? Yes, and John Kerry is President isn't he?

None of your scripture demonstrates that life begins at conception, only that it begins in the womb - something no one here is really debating. You will find that very few people who are pro-choice believe that an elective abortion should be allowed up until the point of birth.

Meanwhile, Exodus 21 explicitly states that the life of the unborn is worth less than the life of the born:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So? What was your point? Is your position that the aborted fetus was not a life yet, as you suggest by the first part of your post, or is it not as 'valuable' a human as you say in the end of the post?

Either way I find it ironic that people that make public stances that espouse the position that God does NOT reach down from the heavens to performs miracles on earth, at least not on a personal and daily basis because he invented or created the world to run on it’s own, but then turn around for the abortion issue by saying things like "It's not human ... yet"

All of a sudden your evolution isn’t necessary anymore and it's like you seem to expect Angels to sing and Trumpets to sound when God determines that it's time to deposit a soul during the (insert choice here: 12th week, 3rd trimester or the moment the baby's head breaks through the rim of the cervix [provided it’s not being pulled out my a doctor’s tools ~ cause then the angels would know NOT to insert a soul in it cause it’s just a lump of cells] or any other point of pregnancy that you may have determined to be the moment) so that just then, at that exact moment, the Angel of life can implant a soul into it and write it’s name in the book of life. Magically turning it from a growing clod of cells and into a person... It sounds like maybe you do believe in the before and after miracle event on earth after all?

As for me though, I'm not going to pretend to know when Souls are created. But I do know that If we have them at all, we have them in, and out, of the womb. I also know that if I don’t touch it, it WILL be someone that I can recognize to be as human as anyone else, provided I don’t smash on it like a bug on my windshield as I drive thorough my life carefree and oblivious to the harm I do.

You accuse me of being shallow in the regards that I expect everyone else to share my moral codes, you’ve said so in many a post. And I do. I expect them not to hurt each other and I will object when they do hurt each other. But honestly, you ask much more than I do. You ask us to suspend all moral codes as yours is the only one relevant, you ask us to look the other way as you smother the ‘breath of life’ so that it won’t breath it’s first breath. Instead of accepting your plea for privacy to do your work, I only ask that everyone takes a real close look and decides for themselves, and then as a group again, if we are going to allow this to continue. OR, are we instead going to help make a better world so that we can provide better options for these poor women to get to choose from.

None of your scripture demonstrates that life begins at conception, only that it begins in the womb - something no one here is really debating. You will find that very few people who are pro-choice believe that an elective abortion should be allowed up until the point of birth.

Meanwhile, Exodus 21 explicitly states that the life of the unborn is worth less than the life of the born:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And what would you have proposed for the penalty IF the value of the fetus was actually worth as much as a baby? Would the 'wronged' family then go wait for the other guys wife to get pregnant so they can make her miscarry too?

Of course not. So your argument is invalid. Even if the fetus was/is worth the same as a born child the penalty could not be the same. For all you know the judges determined that the offender had to give up twenty years of wages, that or maybe just a sick cow, the scripture doesn't say. And neither can you.

1. Ma'am, have you ever had an abortion before?
A: Me? Oh God no, of course not!

2. Ma'am, were you and your partner using any form of birth control?
A: *pause* uhem, Um, yes, of course... yes, yes,

3. Ma'am, do you believe exit polls are an accurate gauge for determining private human behavior where they can lie with no consequences and they don’t want to be shamed even one on one with a stranger they think will have strong feelings about their answers?
A: Why Yes! Yes I do, very strongly I do, what reason would we have to lie in nameless poll taking? Yes, and John Kerry is President isn't he?

1. Here are facts established by multiple types of studies by multiple sources, including the Center for Disease Control
A: They don't fit my ideological view, so they must be wrong.
A2: I have no idea what kind of studies these were, so I'll assume they were unreliable surveys only.
A3: Facts are really inconvenient. They shouldn't stop me from making crap up.

So? What was your point? Is your position that the aborted fetus was not a life yet, as you suggest by the first part of your post, or is it not as 'valuable' a human as you say in the end of the post?

You misunderstand the relevant questions.

You don't value all life. Somethings have a right to life and some don't.

The question is whether, prior to late in pregnancy, a zygote-embryo-fetus is a person with a right to life. It isn't.

Pigs, monkeys, and dolphins have a better claim to a right to life than an embryo.

And, by-the-frickin'-way, there is a "valuable," human, living, person with rights involved -- the WOMAN! She has a rights to life, to self-ownership, to control over her own body, etc. Even if you were to assume a fetus has a right to life, that would not end the question. It would not have a superior right to the use of a woman's own body.

Either way I find it ironic that people that make public stances that espouse the position that God does NOT reach down from the heavens to performs miracles on earth, at least not on a personal and daily basis because he invented or created the world to run on it’s own, but then turn around for the abortion issue by saying things like "It's not human ... yet"

Don't be ridiculous.

Those of us who are pro-choice aren't relying on God -- you are. And we are pointing out that the word of your God -- the Bible -- is rather less clear on the matter than you assume.

If anything is ironic, it is that you rely on your religious view when you cannot point to a single passage in the Bible condemning abortion. One can argue what the Bible says about when life begins (although I think you have the wrong end of the stick). But -- even in the portions that go on and on about what you can and cannot eat or wear -- it never says you cannot have an abortion.

All of a sudden your evolution isn’t necessary anymore and it's like you seem to expect Angels to sing and Trumpets to sound when God determines that it's time to deposit a soul during the (insert choice here: 12th week, 3rd trimester or the moment the baby's head breaks through the rim of the cervix [provided it’s not being pulled out my a doctor’s tools ~ cause then the angels would know NOT to insert a soul in it cause it’s just a lump of cells] or any other point of pregnancy that you may have determined to be the moment) so that just then, at that exact moment, the Angel of life can implant a soul into it and write it’s name in the book of life. Magically turning it from a growing clod of cells and into a person... It sounds like maybe you do believe in the before and after miracle event on earth after all?

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

If you can prove if and when one gets a soul, please do so.

Otherwise this is sophistry.

As for me though, I'm not going to pretend to know when Souls are created. But I do know that If we have them at all, we have them in, and out, of the womb. I also know that if I don’t touch it, it WILL be someone that I can recognize to be as human as anyone else, provided I don’t smash on it like a bug on my windshield as I drive thorough my life carefree and oblivious to the harm I do.

1. Prove we have souls.

2. Do other entities have souls? Why not? How can you tell? Why can we kill them but not embryos?

3. Biologically, you are wrong. A fertilized cell will not necessarily become a born child.

4. Are you against all medical intervention in pregnancies or does your "against nature" argument run one-way?

5. Why do you have such disdain for the moral judgment of half the female population of the United States? Do you really have such fear and loathing of women?

You accuse me of being shallow in the regards that I expect everyone else to share my moral codes, you’ve said so in many a post. And I do. I expect them not to hurt each other and I will object when they do hurt each other. But honestly, you ask much more than I do. You ask us to suspend all moral codes as yours is the only one relevant, you ask us to look the other way as you smother the ‘breath of life’ so that it won’t breath it’s first breath.

We ask you to respect the moral autonomy and equality of pregnant women. To recognize that they are not slaves. That they have rights. That they can be trusted with decisions about their own medical care.

Is that too much to ask?

Instead of accepting your plea for privacy to do your work, I only ask that everyone takes a real close look and decides for themselves, and then as a group again, if we are going to allow this to continue. OR, are we instead going to help make a better world so that we can provide better options for these poor women to get to choose from.

Bullshit.

You very specifically said you would force individuals to make the choice that you feel is best.

You care not how real close a look they take, how carefully they have decided, what their circumstances are. You would take the choice from them.

These "poor women" don't want your pity. They want your recognition that they are equal individuals with rights -- that they are at least as important as a clump of cells.

1. Here are facts established by multiple types of studies by multiple sources, including the Center for Disease Control
A: They don't fit my ideological view, so they must be wrong.
A2: I have no idea what kind of studies these were, so I'll assume they were unreliable surveys only.
A3: Facts are really inconvenient. They shouldn't stop me from making crap up.

Are you suggesting that the raw data and general information wasn't gathered via anonymous surveys? If not, than the information in it is going to be even LESS reliable now isn't it? Who the hell is going to tell the truth when the whole world might find out about it and your name will be on it for posterity!?

And what would you have proposed for the penalty IF the value of the fetus was actually worth as much as a baby? Would the 'wronged' family then go wait for the other guys wife to get pregnant so they can make her miscarry too?

Of course not. So your argument is invalid. Even if the fetus was/is worth the same as a born child the penalty could not be the same. For all you know the judges determined that the offender had to give up twenty years of wages, that or maybe just a sick cow, the scripture doesn't say. And neither can you.

Nice try. But some of us actually read the relevant passages -- which defeat your feeble fictions.

Let us look at just some of the surrounding passages:

Exd 21:1 Now these [are] the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

Exd 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Exd 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death

Exd 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exd 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Exd 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Exd 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

So, God specifically prescribes death as the punishment for:
1. Striking and killing a man
2. Kidnapping and selling a person
3. Cursing one's parents
4. Owning a tempermental ox that kills someone
5. Being a witch
6. Bestiality

But killing an unborn child -- what you would call the "heinous" crime of abortion -- merits a fine.

Yep. The Bible sure supports your position that abortion is murder. :rolleyes:

<snip>

At one time you could change your mind about a child that hadn't reached adulthood. Then it got that abandonment of infants was okay but once you kept them you had to let them live. Now they are only killable if they are still in the womb. You wait a hundred years, see what they say. The road being travelled looks like it's going my way.

p.s., as to the Christian doctrine and evolution stuff, Dem knows what I was talking about. But in answer to you about ancient Judeo-Christian views on the matter:

The Jewish society was culturally and socially opposed to both infanticide and abortion. An exception occurred if the continuation of a pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or to her other children. In such cases, the pregnant woman is actually obligated to abort the fetus; the fetus is then considered "radef" – pursuer but was buried as a lost child would be.

Early in the 1st century CE, Philo of Alexandria (? - circa 47 CE) wrote on infanticide and abortion, condemning the cultures and religions of the time for the widespread and what he called unjustified practices.
"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." (Didache and Epistle of Barnabas, both early 2nd century), a prohibition directed at all Christians in these two guides to Christian life and worship.

"The fetus in the womb is . . . an object of God's care," and, "We say that women who induce abortions are murders, and will have to give account of it to God." (Athenagoras, late 2nd century)

"In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb." (Tertullian, late 2nd century)

"There are women who . . . [are] committing infanticide before they give birth to the infant" (Minucious Felix, early 3rd century)

"Those . . . who give drugs causing abortion are [deliberate murderers] themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus" (Basil, 4th century)
Pretend all you want. I can’t claim to have read all of the Gnostics yet, but, they didn’t have a very good opinion of life on earth, maybe they thought an abortions was a quicker way to leave this Satan infested world, but so far, I haven’t read anything by them condoning abortion either.

Are you suggesting that the raw data and general information wasn't gathered via anonymous surveys? If not, than the information in it is going to be even LESS reliable now isn't it? Who the hell is going to tell the truth when the whole world might find out about it and your name will be on it for posterity!?

I'm suggesting you have not looked at the data or studies and are engaging in wild-ass speculation to explain away results you don't like.

I'm suggesting some of the data is from medical records. Duh. :rolleyes:

I'm suggesting that medical researchers are not as gullible or stupid as you assume.

I'm suggesting your little Q & A scenarios were utter bullshit.

I'm suggesting that you have no facts on your side, so you make stuff up.

I'm suggesting anonymous medical surveys -- conducted properly and corroborated by other sources and studies -- are not so easily dismissed simply because the results are inconvenient.

I'm suggesting that -- of all the stats I cited -- only one or two would be based on survey data at all.

So, I'm suggesting you've raised a red herring.

1. Ma'am, have you ever had an abortion before?
A: Me? Oh God no, of course not!

2. Ma'am, were you and your partner using any form of birth control?
A: *pause* uhem, Um, yes, of course... yes, yes,

3. Ma'am, do you believe exit polls are an accurate gauge for determining private human behavior where they can lie with no consequences and they don’t want to be shamed even one on one with a stranger they think will have strong feelings about their answers?
A: Why Yes! Yes I do, very strongly I do, what reason would we have to lie in nameless poll taking? Yes, and John Kerry is President isn't he?

Maybe you hadn't considered the possibility... but maybe the 'poll' actually reflects results ALSO obtained through blood-tests, etc?

The pill would probably be detectable, don't you think?

Why don't you guys just go look up the source of the data? You know, where they gave it to you and prove me wrong? It would be a lot easier that 'supposing.'

The problem with thinking that this is 'normal' medical record research is that people that get abortions don't 'normally' do it with their day-to-day family practitioner. They do it at the clinic. The clinic in town that does abortions, you know, you might have heard of them. You might also know that they don't require names and addresses if you can pay up front. Privacy and all that.

Now tell me again how they get these statistics of women that take their birth control pill without mistake and get pregnant due to no fault of their own and require an abortion right after filling out the Census Abortion Survey...

Maybe you hadn't considered the possibility... but maybe the 'poll' actually reflects results ALSO obtained through blood-tests, etc?

The pill would probably be detectable, don't you think?
Tell me, do you REALLY believe that? Or maybe you're just kinda throwing that out there? You know, hoping that maybe nodody notices that they don't actually do a drug test on all the women getting abortions or else a large percentage of those women wouldn't be going to that clinic in the first place now would they?

Why don't you guys just go look up the source of the data? You know, where they gave it to you and prove me wrong? It would be a lot easier that 'supposing.'


And yet, you 'assume' that the only evidence to support your concept would be poll-based?

Double standard?


The problem with thinking that this is 'normal' medical record research is that people that get abortions don't 'normally' do it with their day-to-day family practitioner. They do it at the clinic. The clinic in town that does abortions, you know, you might have heard of them. You might also know that they don't require names and addresses if you can pay up front. Privacy and all that.

Now tell me again how they get these statistics of women that take their birth control pill without mistake and get pregnant due to no fault of their own and require an abortion right after filling out the Census Abortion Survey...


I know we are just talking supposition again, but, let's face it, your whole argument so far has been hypothetical...

You realise that any 'Abortion Clinic Survey' could be being compared to information gathered on a similar topic, but in a different venue?

For example... at a later date, in a different medical review..... or maybe through independent research?


Tell me, do you REALLY believe that? Or maybe you're just kinda throwing that out there? You know, hoping that maybe nodody notices that they don't actually do a drug test on all the women getting abortions or else a large percentage of those women wouldn't be going to that clinic in the first place now would they?

I didn't say they DID do drug tests on ALL abortion clients. Don't know where you got that from.

What I said they might do is BLOOD testing... which might possibly show the presence of contraceptives, might it not?

You know, sometimes people take blood for testing things like medical compatability...

At one time you could change your mind about a child that hadn't reached adulthood. Then it got that abandonment of infants was okay but once you kept them you had to let them live. Now they are only killable if they are still in the womb. You wait a hundred years, see what they say. The road being travelled looks like it's going my way.

p.s., as to the Christian doctrine and evolution stuff, Dem knows what I was talking about. But in answer to you about ancient Judeo-Christian views on the matter:

The Jewish society was culturally and socially opposed to both infanticide and abortion. An exception occurred if the continuation of a pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or to her other children. In such cases, the pregnant woman is actually obligated to abort the fetus; the fetus is then considered "radef" – pursuer but was buried as a lost child would be.

Early in the 1st century CE, Philo of Alexandria (? - circa 47 CE) wrote on infanticide and abortion, condemning the cultures and religions of the time for the widespread and what he called unjustified practices.
"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." (Didache and Epistle of Barnabas, both early 2nd century), a prohibition directed at all Christians in these two guides to Christian life and worship.

"The fetus in the womb is . . . an object of God's care," and, "We say that women who induce abortions are murders, and will have to give account of it to God." (Athenagoras, late 2nd century)

"In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb." (Tertullian, late 2nd century)

"There are women who . . . [are] committing infanticide before they give birth to the infant" (Minucious Felix, early 3rd century)

"Those . . . who give drugs causing abortion are [deliberate murderers] themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus" (Basil, 4th century)
Pretend all you want. I can’t claim to have read all of the Gnostics yet, but, they didn’t have a very good opinion of life on earth, maybe they thought an abortions was a quicker way to leave this Satan infested world, but so far, I haven’t read anything by them condoning abortion either.

1. Snipping all my arguments and questions is a good way to avoid answering them isn't it?

2. We'll see if Dem agrees with "what [you] are talking about." My guess is she'll see some of the same flaws I did.

3. Your revisionist version of history is funny. Utterly laughable.

4. Why should I or anyone else care about what a handful of early Christian writers said about the subject?

5. Your Biblical references and representations of early Judeo-Christian holdings are selective and misleading.

A. Let us start with the Bible:

Numbers 5:12-31 "Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water....." This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nothing in the passage seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present.

Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person.

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.

Exodus 22:29"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." This is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews ritually murder their first son, sacrificing him to their god.

Leviticus 27:6 "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female ten shekels." A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

Numbers 3:15 "Take a census...including every male a month or more old." Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. An infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human.

there are many, many more passages ... need I cite them all?

B. Turning to Judeo-Christian history:

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' "

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body."

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) taught the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

Again, I could care less about what the Bible or historical Christians have to say about abortion.

But, if you are going to base your position on the Bible, you are very, very thin ice.

I don't have enough time to address all of this right now, but when I mentioned Dem, and you mentioned it back it became important enough to not wait. Surely I did not mean that I thought she would agree with me! :p No sir!

I meant to say that you quoted something that was directed at her in regards to previous discussions we have had. We all know that she's not going to agree with me. :)

Why don't you guys just go look up the source of the data? You know, where they gave it to you and prove me wrong? It would be a lot easier that 'supposing.'*snip*

Um. You are the one "supposing."

I've looked at the sources. They use a variety of methodologies.

You've merely assumed the data must be unreliable.

If you want to assert the Centers for Disease Control is propogating false numbers, then you prove it.

REGARDLESS, ONLY 1 OR 2 OF THE STATISTICS I GAVE ARE EVEN VAGUELY RELATED TO SURVEY DATA!!

You are trying to create a bullshit smokescreen. That dog won't hunt.

1. Snipping all my arguments and questions is a good way to avoid answering them isn't it?

2. We'll see if Dem agrees with "what [you] are talking about." My guess is she'll see some of the same flaws I did.

3. Your revisionist version of history is funny. Utterly laughable.

4. Why should I or anyone else care about what a handful of early Christian writers said about the subject?

5. Your Biblical references and representations of early Judeo-Christian holdings are selective and misleading.

A. Let us start with the Bible:

Numbers 5:12-31 "Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water....." This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nothing in the passage seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present.

Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person.

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.

Exodus 22:29"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." This is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews ritually murder their first son, sacrificing him to their god.

Leviticus 27:6 "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female ten shekels." A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

Numbers 3:15 "Take a census...including every male a month or more old." Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. An infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human.

there are many, many more passages ... need I cite them all?

B. Turning to Judeo-Christian history:

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' "

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body."

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) taught the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

Again, I could care less about what the Bible or historical Christians have to say about abortion.

But, if you are going to base your position on the Bible, you are very, very thin ice.

That piece of paper you just handed to Ph33rdom... I couldn't quite read it, what did it say?

I couldn't quite see from this angle, but it looked like "pwned"...

That piece of paper you just handed to Ph33rdom... I couldn't quite read it, what did it say?

I couldn't quite see from this angle, but it looked like "pwned"...

I was going to leave it for tonight, but you guys just don't get it. There is as much stuff for one side as the other if that's the entire point. And I can prove it:



From the Allan Guttmacher Institute http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (props to Joshua for the link):

• 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion.

• In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred.

• Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.

• 52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.

• Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.

• 43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic.

• 2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.

• On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

• 9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method.
From a PowerPoint presentation from the AGI website comes the breakdown of the most important reasons given for obtaining an abortion:
Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%
Too young; not mature enough 11%
Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%
Other 4%
[Note: AGI is avowedly pro-choice, so these statistics are not from the "small and wacko fringe", that is to say, those of us who oppose the practice of abortion.]


Statistic go both ways:

The Canons of the Council of Ancyra (which canons were accepted and received by the ecumenical synods)
Canon XXI.
Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfil ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees.

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles
Book VII.
Concerning the Christian life, and the Eucharist and Initiation into Christ
Sec. I
III. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed."

The Didache
(The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
CHAP. II.--The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden
And the second commandment of the Teaching; Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit paederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practise magic, thou shalt not practise witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

Athenagoras of Athens
Apology for the Christians
Chap. XXXV.--The Christians Condemn and Detest All Cruelty
What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore, being false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so barefaced as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more and some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen; but even of these, not one has been found to invent even such things against us. For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. But we are in all things always alike and the same, submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over it.

The Epistle of Barnabas
Chap. XIX.--The Way of Light
The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. Thou shalt love Him that created thee: thou shalt glorify Him that redeemed thee from death. Thou shalt be simple in heart, and rich in spirit. Thou shalt not join thyself to those who walk in the way of death. Thou shalt hate doing what is unpleasing to God: thou shalt hate all hypocrisy. Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, but shalt be of a lowly mind. Thou shalt not take glory to thyself. Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not allow over-boldness to enter into thy soul. Thou shalt not commit fornication: thou shalt not commit adultery: thou shalt not be a corrupter of youth. Thou shalt not let the word of God issue from thy lips with any kind of impurity. Thou shalt not accept persons when thou reprovest any one for transgression. Thou shalt be meek: thou shalt be peaceable. Thou shalt tremble at the words which thou hearest. Thou shalt not be mindful of evil against thy brother. Thou shalt not be of doubtful mind as to whether a thing shall be or not. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord.

St. Basil the Great
Letter CLXXXVIII.: (Canonica Prima.) To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons.
VII. On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents. And if any one has concocted some magic philtre for some other reason, and then causes death, I count this as intentional. Women frequently endeavour to draw men to love them by incantations and magic knots, and give them drugs which dull their intelligence. Such women, when they cause death, though the result of their action may not be what they intended, are nevertheless, on account of their proceedings being magical and prohibited, to be reckoned among intentional homicides. Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses. So much on this subject.

The Canons of St. Basil
Canon II
Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not.
Canon VIII
But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees.

St. Jerome
Letter XXII: To Eustochium
13. Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.

St. John Chrysostom
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
XXIV: You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born.(2) Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?

Tertullian
Treatise on the Soul
Chap. XXXVII.--On the Formation and State of the Embryo. Its Relation with the Subject of this Treatise
Now the entire process of sowing, forming, and completing the human embryo in the womb is no doubt regulated by some power, which ministers herein to the will of God, whatever may be the method which it is appointed to employ. Even the superstition of Rome, by carefully attending to these points, imagined the goddess Alemona to nourish the foetus in the womb; as well as (the goddesses) Nona and Decima, called after the most critical months of gestation; and Partula, to manage and direct parturition; and Lucina, to bring the child to the birth and light of day. We, on our part, believe the angels to officiate herein for God. The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed. The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death, since it is already liable to the issues of both, although, by living still in the mother, it for the most part shares its own state with the mother.

The Canons of the Council in Trullo (The Quinisext Council)
Canon XCI.
Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder.




But I fail to see how that sort of posting is going to help either of us... I'm going to assume that you both are smart enough to be able to use rationale. Therefore, we should leave the scripture and ancient writings out of it because it proves nothing besides the fact that this debate has been going on for thousands of years, literally. So long as you don't act like the scripture is on your side alone we won't have to make these types of posts at each other.

But I fail to see how that sort of posting is going to help either of us... I'm going to assume that you both are smart enough to be able to use rationale. Therefore, we should leave the scripture and ancient writings out of it because it proves nothing besides the fact that this debate has been going on for thousands of years, literally. So long as you don't act like the scripture is on your side alone we won't have to make these types of posts at each other.

Not sure what you think the statistical part is doing for your argument... and, not sure why you think that the random writing of post-Christian scribes has anything to do with scripture.

But apart from that, nice post. With some good commentary against abortion. Just not sure what the evidentiary support was that you think it afforded.

I was going to leave it for tonight, but you guys just don't get it. There is as much stuff for one side as the other if that's the entire point. And I can prove it:

From the Allan Guttmacher Institute http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (props to Joshua for the link):
*snip*

Statistic go both ways:

:headbang: I gave that link in my original post.

And those statistics say what that refutes my points? Nothing. Nada. Bupkus.

But thanks for recognizing the value of such statistics.

Care to address the original points now?



*snip*
But I fail to see how that sort of posting is going to help either of us... I'm going to assume that you both are smart enough to be able to use rationale. Therefore, we should leave the scripture and ancient writings out of it because it proves nothing besides the fact that this debate has been going on for thousands of years, literally. So long as you don't act like the scripture is on your side alone we won't have to make these types of posts at each other.

1. You have yet to point to scripture that treats abortion as a serious offense.

2. You are the one that thinks God is on your side. I don't think there is any such being.

3. I agree we can leave the silly ancient writings out of it. As you admit, they don't help you. They at most show that Christianity has changed its position on the issue over time.

I was going to leave it for tonight, but you guys just don't get it. There is as much stuff for one side as the other if that's the entire point. And I can prove it:

From the Allan Guttmacher Institute http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (props to Joshua for the link):

• Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.

*snip*

• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

• 9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method.

*snip*

Did you miss your confirmation of the main points you were disputing?

Thanks for the concessions.

:headbang: I gave that link in my original post.

And those statistics say what that refutes my points? Nothing. Nada. Bupkus.

But thanks for recognizing the value of such statistics.
The statistics I posted were a more complete positng of your statistics, I just included the parts you didn't want to mention. I still submit that they are mainly useless. I know they are an incomplete and collected via survey as do you, but you want to use them anyway as a form of debate material for the very ethics of abortion itself. I then pointed out, that to use them as fact derserves to be ridiculed because they were never intended to be used that way, as no 'exit' polling is ever accurate.


1. You have yet to point to scripture that treats abortion as a serious offense.

I have pointed out several, but you don't believe them anyway and you think that the punishment for abortion should be worse in them? Go figure.


2. You are the one that thinks God is on your side. I don't think there is any such being.

And thus, since you don't believe in one I don't see the point in debating detailed translations and social issues surrounding the issues of what was written where and when and for whom dealing with which issue ...

3. I agree we can leave the silly ancient writings out of it. As you admit, they don't help you

I do not admit any such thing.

They at most show that Christianity has changed its position on the issue over time.

As a matter of fact, I've shown that Judeo-Christian doctrine is the first teachings in the world to be Anti-Infanticide and Anti-Abortion. I just don't have any motivation to continue to argue the meaning of the scripture with someone that says the scripture has no bearing on the issue in the first place and thinks that the scripture is not a legitimate basis for holding a social point of view. Therefore, why debate the merits and details of doctrine with someone that has thrown away the entire code?

Only because you and Graven quote it or mention if for the effect it has on those that do believe in it but don't know it good enough to be able to counter your half quotes and intentionally taking quotes out of context or mis-interpreting the quotes that are cited, I feel the need to counter your public mis-statements in regards to the scripture, I do counter scriptural quotes for their benefit, not yours.

Did you miss your confirmation of the main points you were disputing?

Thanks for the concessions.

You're welcome:

Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%

That leaves exactly 93% for unneccesary abortions. Nice statistics you've gathered there, I don't see how it helps your position though?

Not sure what you think the statistical part is doing for your argument... and, not sure why you think that the random writing of post-Christian scribes has anything to do with scripture.
Added back in the stuff he left out of it. I still don't think it should be used as ammunition in a debate though, it's unreliable at best and misleading at worst and was never intended to be used like scientifically gathered raw data.


But apart from that, nice post. With some good commentary against abortion. Just not sure what the evidentiary support was that you think it afforded. I had to counter the accusation that early Christianity and Christians didn't see a problem with abortion or that they somehow found it non-offensive and that modern Christians, and by that, implying that modern Christians have somehow invented this complaint against abortion.

i hate to wade back into this mess but i thought id point out one little thing

those religious thinkers who spoke against abortion were writing in a time when a woman was considered definitely pregnant when the baby "quickened", meaning when she could feel it move inside her. (they dint have a plastic stick to pee on.)

this is around 4 months, a time when abortion is generally considered illegal NOW unless there is some overriding reason for it like genetic defect or danger to the mother.

i hate to wade back into this mess but i thought id point out one little thing

those religious thinkers who spoke against abortion were writing in a time when a woman was considered definitely pregnant when the baby "quickened", meaning when she could feel it move inside her. (they dint have a plastic stick to pee on.)

this is around 4 months, a time when abortion is generally considered illegal NOW unless there is some overriding reason for it like genetic defect or danger to the mother.

A heart is beating by week 6, most people will only start to suspect that they are pregnant around then...

http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

I don't want to assume, are you thinking that maybe a 'soul' isn't involved until later?

A heart is beating by week 6, most people will only start to suspect that they are pregnant around then...

http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

I don't want to assume, are you thinking that maybe a 'soul' isn't involved until later?

no i have no real interest in when the soul is involved. i was merely pointing out that your use of st augustine to back you up is of limited use since what HE thought should be illegal generally IS illegal.

no i have no real interest in when the soul is involved. i was merely pointing out that your use of st augustine to back you up is of limited use since what HE thought should be illegal generally IS illegal.

Actually, I was only quoting ancient writers because other people had posted the idea that the ancients didn't have a problem with it or that they actually condoned abortions. I merely posted some doctrines from the very early church that show the exact opposite evidence. The Judeo-Christians were the first groups to oppose infanticide and abortion, there's no other way of looking at it.

I'm astonished by the number of people around here that say they don't personally believe in the relevancy of what the early scriptures say, just before or after they've told you that they think the scriptures are on their side.

The statistics I posted were a more complete positng of your statistics, I just included the parts you didn't want to mention.

No. You posted some additional statistics. Not all of them.

I have no problem whatsoever with the statistics you cited.

They do not change the facts I cited, such as:

Almost half of all women in the United States have had at least one abortion by the time they reach age 45

A majorty -- over 60% -- of women having abortions have been mothers. They already have had one more more child!

Poor and low-income women account for over one-half of abortions.

Almost 90% of abortions in the US are performed in the first trimesters of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks).

More than half are performed duing the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.

Abortions are increasingly performed earlier and earlier during pregnancy.

Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

About 0.08% are performed at 24 weeks or beyond.

More than half (52%) of women having abortions have had no prior abortion. 61% have had a prior birth.

If a sexually active woman were to use abortion as her means of birth control and she wanted two children, she would have about 30 abortions by the time she reached age 45.

Use of abortion as a primary method of birth control is not common. If it were so, the large majority of abortions would be repeat abortions.

I still submit that they are mainly useless. I know they are an incomplete and collected via survey as do you, but you want to use them anyway as a form of debate material for the very ethics of abortion itself.

None of the above are "incomplete."

None of the above are based merely or even primarily on survey data.

You are either making wild assertions or you are lying.

I then pointed out, that to use them as fact derserves to be ridiculed because they were never intended to be used that way, as no 'exit' polling is ever accurate.

Ignoring that they are facts

Ignoring that most of the facts I cited have nothing to do with surveys -- such as the ones repeated above.

Ignoring that medical surveys are not the same as exit polling.

Just plain ignoring facts that you find inconvenient.

I have pointed out several, but you don't believe them anyway and you think that the punishment for abortion should be worse in them? Go figure.

No. You didn't.

At most, you pointed to several passages that may say when life begins. That say little more than someone was alive in the womb.

And someone else identified one passage that says killing a fetus without a woman's consent -- involuntary abortion -- is a minor offense punishable by a fine. Less serious than cursing one's parents.

And you've failed to respond to the several passages that I cited.

Admit it. There is nothing in the Bible that says voluntary abortion is a sin. That it is even wrong.
And thus, since you don't believe in one I don't see the point in debating detailed translations and social issues surrounding the issues of what was written where and when and for whom dealing with which issue ...

Nice cop-out.

I do not admit any such thing.

It seemed clear that you did. But if you did not, you should have.

As a matter of fact, I've shown that Judeo-Christian doctrine is the first teachings in the world to be Anti-Infanticide and Anti-Abortion.

1. No. You haven't.

2. WTF has who said it was wrong first have to do with anything?

I just don't have any motivation to continue to argue the meaning of the scripture with someone that says the scripture has no bearing on the issue in the first place and thinks that the scripture is not a legitimate basis for holding a social point of view. Therefore, why debate the merits and details of doctrine with someone that has thrown away the entire code?

An easy way to avoid dealing with the fact that your own alleged source doesn't support your position.

Only because you and Graven quote it or mention if for the effect it has on those that do believe in it but don't know it good enough to be able to counter your half quotes and intentionally taking quotes out of context or mis-interpreting the quotes that are cited, I feel the need to counter your public mis-statements in regards to the scripture, I do counter scriptural quotes for their benefit, not yours.

Um. You didn't respond to a single one of the quotes I provided from the Bible.

Instead, you quoted some early Christian writings and claimed "hey, there is stuff on both sides, so let's not argue it."

The Bible simply does not support your view on abortion. If you wish to base your view on the Bible, then your view is wrong. If you wish to base it on something else, please do.

You're welcome:

That leaves exactly 93% for unneccesary abortions. Nice statistics you've gathered there, I don't see how it helps your position though?

I disagree with (a) your definition of "unnecessary" and (b) whether it mattters.

Those statistics were not the ones I cited and they neither help nor harm my position.

Care to stop ignoring the statistics I cited? Or are you going to continue to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and chanting dogma?

Added back in the stuff he left out of it. I still don't think it should be used as ammunition in a debate though, it's unreliable at best and misleading at worst and was never intended to be used like scientifically gathered raw data.

Bullshit.

You are simply making that up.

The Centers for Disease Control data is scientifically gathered, is reliable, and is accurate. The sources of the data are all reliable medical studies.

Just because you don't like it, does not make it wrong.

I had to counter the accusation that early Christianity and Christians didn't see a problem with abortion or that they somehow found it non-offensive and that modern Christians, and by that, implying that modern Christians have somehow invented this complaint against abortion.

:confused:

So, you rebutted an issue you made up in your own head?

And, by your own opinion, found their was evidence both ways as to early Christian beliefs. Way to go!

A heart is beating by week 6, most people will only start to suspect that they are pregnant around then...

http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

My guess is you eat things everyday that had a beating heart.

Regardless, you should be happy:

In 2001, for women whose weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (42 reporting areas), 59% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <13 weeks (Table 6). Overall (40 reporting areas), 25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks.

And:

From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2001, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

I don't want to assume, are you thinking that maybe a 'soul' isn't involved until later?

A "soul" isn't involved at all.

You cannot prove it is.

... even using your Bible.

(BTW, do only humans have souls?)

Actually, I was only quoting ancient writers because other people had posted the idea that the ancients didn't have a problem with it or that they actually condoned abortions. I merely posted some doctrines from the very early church that show the exact opposite evidence. The Judeo-Christians were the first groups to oppose infanticide and abortion, there's no other way of looking at it.

I'm astonished by the number of people around here that say they don't personally believe in the relevancy of what the early scriptures say, just before or after they've told you that they think the scriptures are on their side.

And I'm astonished by people who personally believe in the Bible, but ignore what it says and does not say on abortion.

It does not support you, sparky.

And I'm astonished by people who personally believe in the Bible, but ignore what it says and does not say on abortion.

It does not support you, sparky.

Other Christians have read and understood the Scripture to say the same as I am saying now: Why does this bother you? You've already said you don't believe in it at all, if it's on your side or my side it makes no difference, you've dismissed it. So why debate it's merits, you and I? But, again, to ensure that others who are reading your seemingly angry gibberish about it, I’ll remind them that I’m not making it up by quoting some of the early church doctrine yet again.


Early in the 1st century CE, Philo of Alexandria (? - circa 47 CE) wrote on infanticide and abortion, condemning the cultures and religions of the time for the widespread and what he called unjustified practices.

"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." (Didache and Epistle of Barnabas, both early 2nd century), a prohibition directed at all Christians in these two guides to Christian life and worship.

Also;
"The fetus in the womb is . . . an object of God's care," and, "We say that women who induce abortions are murders, and will have to give account of it to God." (Athenagoras, late 2nd century)

"In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb." (Tertullian, late 2nd century)

You don't even believe in people having Souls, and without that belief, you of course don' see a reason to assume that a person is more valuable than and animal, and if there are no souls and 'value intrinsic' with life, living or dead, then of course you wouldn't have a problem performing abortions.

It would be no different than small animals in captivity that eat their own young. Nature does it, why not us? From your point of view, that makes sense.

From my point of view; We do have souls. There is a value that is placed on life and living. That we are not animals and that more is expected of us than of them. That we are not in ourselves the end of all creation and that self-sacrifice for another (namely our children) is a worthy goal in and of itself.

Of course you and I disagree on abortion and whether or not we want to live in a society that disregards the value of life outside of ourselves for it's own sake, even when it is not beneficial to us individually.

Other Christians have read and understood the Scripture to say the same as I am saying now: Why does this bother you? You've already said you don't believe in it at all, if it's on your side or my side it makes no difference, you've dismissed it. So why debate it's merits, you and I?

Because you and other Christians try to use your faith to justify an opinion that is not supported by the Bible.

You accused Grave and I of seeking to mislead those who believe in the Bible.

Yet I have proven that it is you that are misusing the Bible.

If the Bible does not say abortion is wrong, would you still oppose it?

If the Bible condones abortion, would you still oppose it?

If there are people for whom the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is worthwhile for me to argue what the Bible says in order to convince such people from seeking to subjugate women in the name of false dogma.

But, again, to ensure that others who are reading your seemingly angry gibberish about it, I’ll remind them that I’m not making it up by quoting some of the early church doctrine yet again.

LOL.

The "angry gibberish" that quotes straight from the Bible and from Christian history?

Writings of some early Christians != the Bible

Writings of some early Christians < the Bible

That others have misused faith does not make it right.

You don't even believe in people having Souls, and without that belief, you of course don' see a reason to assume that a person is more valuable than and animal, and if there are no souls and 'value intrinsic' with life, living or dead, then of course you wouldn't have a problem performing abortions.

Nonsequitur.

I believe life has value.

I believe persons have a right to life.

I believe persons are more valuable than non-persons.

I believe humans are more valuable than other animals.

And I can rationally and morally justify these positions without reference to superstitions.

It would be no different than small animals in captivity that eat their own young. Nature does it, why not us? From your point of view, that makes sense.

Silly. Pathetic fallacies of distraction, ad hominem attack, and attack on motives.

From my point of view; We do have souls. There is a value that is placed on life and living. That we are not animals and that more is expected of us than of them. That we are not in ourselves the end of all creation and that self-sacrifice for another (namely our children) is a worthy goal in and of itself.

Bully for you. Then don't have an abortion.

But don't try to criminalize the rational choices of those who don't share your superstitions.

Of course you and I disagree on abortion and whether or not we want to live in a society that disregards the value of life outside of ourselves for it's own sake, even when it is not beneficial to us individually.

My, oh, my the fallacies just flow from your keyboard ...

Fallacy of the false dilemma.
Slippery slope
Strawman.
Appeals to motive in place of support
Changing the subject ....

Added back in the stuff he left out of it. I still don't think it should be used as ammunition in a debate though, it's unreliable at best and misleading at worst and was never intended to be used like scientifically gathered raw data.

I had to counter the accusation that early Christianity and Christians didn't see a problem with abortion or that they somehow found it non-offensive and that modern Christians, and by that, implying that modern Christians have somehow invented this complaint against abortion.

I think the more important point is that, regardless of what some sycophants a few years later might have said, the Bible seems at BEST somewhat divided on the issue.

Actually - comparing the scripture as presented here... it seems that the text is more pro-abortion than anti-abortion.

I think that when it comes to pregnancy, it is the woman's right to make her own decisions of her body unless she is mentally uncable of doing so for whatever reason. Then it becomes the right of the father of the unborn child. She may choose to allow the father to help in making the decisions, but the final word should be hers.

A heart is beating by week 6, most people will only start to suspect that they are pregnant around then...

http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

I don't want to assume, are you thinking that maybe a 'soul' isn't involved until later?

Your link DOES say that the heart starts beating around week 6... however, it doesn't back up the rest of your claim.

Pregnancies don't get spotted because of the 'heartbeat'... they are more likely to be spotted because of a missed period.

The first point at which most pregnancies can 'feel' the foetus is about week 16... when some of the foetal movements feel like 'butterfly' feelings or 'bubbles'.

By about week 18, the mother can feel the foetus moving some of it's facial muscles... frowning, for example.

You don't even believe in people having Souls, and without that belief, you of course don' see a reason to assume that a person is more valuable than and animal, and if there are no souls and 'value intrinsic' with life, living or dead, then of course you wouldn't have a problem performing abortions.

From my point of view; We do have souls. There is a value that is placed on life and living. That we are not animals and that more is expected of us than of them. That we are not in ourselves the end of all creation and that self-sacrifice for another (namely our children) is a worthy goal in and of itself.


I would also question the scriptural validity of your interpretation of the 'soul'... since reading the scripture in Hebrew CLEARLY shows that animals have 'souls', if humans do.

The soul is the 'life' in the flesh... nothing more. Try reading Genesis in the native tongue.

I think the more important point is that, regardless of what some sycophants a few years later might have said, the Bible seems at BEST somewhat divided on the issue.

Actually - comparing the scripture as presented here... it seems that the text is more pro-abortion than anti-abortion.


These texts, verify the Jewish and Jewish-Christian attitude of the first and second centuries, confirming that the earliest Christians shared the anti-abortion position of those whom do so today as well.

-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."

-- Sibyline Oracles: includes among the wicked those who "produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.

-- I Enoch (first or second century B.C.) says that an evil angel taught humans how to "smash the embryo in the womb."

-- Philo of Alexandria (Jewish philosopher, 25 B.C. to A.D.41) rejected the notion that the fetus is merely part of the mother's body.

-- I Josephus (first-century Jewish historian) wrote, "The law orders all the offspring be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus." (A woman who did so was considered to have committed infanticide because she destroyed a "soul" and hence diminished the race.)

-- The Didache: "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

-- The Epistle of Barnabas: "You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

-- Apocalypse of Peter [describing a vision of Hell]: "I saw women who produced children out of wedlock and who procured abortions."

Your link DOES say that the heart starts beating around week 6... however, it doesn't back up the rest of your claim.

Pregnancies don't get spotted because of the 'heartbeat'... they are more likely to be spotted because of a missed period.

The first point at which most pregnancies can 'feel' the foetus is about week 16... when some of the foetal movements feel like 'butterfly' feelings or 'bubbles'.

By about week 18, the mother can feel the foetus moving some of it's facial muscles... frowning, for example.

That's why it's relavent... 4 weeks, missed period, one more week of worry, one week to get tested, walla, 6 weeks, mother just found out, hearts already beating. It's the only reason I mentioned it.

I would also question the scriptural validity of your interpretation of the 'soul'... since reading the scripture in Hebrew CLEARLY shows that animals have 'souls', if humans do.

The soul is the 'life' in the flesh... nothing more. Try reading Genesis in the native tongue.
That's what I said. You don't believe that we are any different than animals. If they do or don't have 'lifeforce' I don't know. But I'm betting that they don't have to worry about Sin.

These texts, verify the Jewish and Jewish-Christian attitude of the first and second centuries, confirming that the earliest Christians shared the anti-abortion position of those whom do so today as well.

-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."

-- Sibyline Oracles: includes among the wicked those who "produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.

-- I Enoch (first or second century B.C.) says that an evil angel taught humans how to "smash the embryo in the womb."

-- Philo of Alexandria (Jewish philosopher, 25 B.C. to A.D.41) rejected the notion that the fetus is merely part of the mother's body.

-- I Josephus (first-century Jewish historian) wrote, "The law orders all the offspring be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus." (A woman who did so was considered to have committed infanticide because she destroyed a "soul" and hence diminished the race.)

-- The Didache: "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

-- The Epistle of Barnabas: "You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

-- Apocalypse of Peter [describing a vision of Hell]: "I saw women who produced children out of wedlock and who procured abortions."

I still don't see the relevence.

I don't care about any of these people, or what they had to say. They are NOT canonical, not in the bible - thus I see no significance in 'christian' context.

Plus - opinions differ on whether or not Josephus was a 'Jewish' historian. For my money, he was a traitor to the Jewish people, and lapdog to the 'evil empire' of Rome. I accord the words of Josephus about the same value as the paper they are written on.

That's what I said. You don't believe that we are any different than animals. If they do or don't have 'lifeforce' I don't know. But I'm betting that they don't have to worry about Sin.

This is what you said?

You agreed that humans and animals have the 'same' soul?

So - if this is so - what was your argument against abortion, again?

This is what you said?

You agreed that humans and animals have the 'same' soul?

So - if this is so - what was your argument against abortion, again?

Is English a secondary language to you? Perhaps you translate only with difficulty? That or you’ve given up actual discourse because of what? Perhaps you've nothing left to say and have adopted an air of juvenile ridicule to try and hide that fact?

You know, as I do, that you only use the scripture in when you attempt to belittle it or attempt to shake the faith of those weak in knowledge of it but that do believe in it. Your 'stance of disdain' for scripture only disappears when I quote ancient writings that oppose your mistranslation of it and your false accusations that it’s been mistranslated by modern English translations, and then you insist that we only what you know of it because it's 'cannon.'

As I’ve shown, the Judeo-Christian societies have always been opposed to infanticide and abortion, since the very beginning, before the cannon scripture was even assembled. And the Early Christians and Hebrews all practiced a faith that was opposed to the idea of it even though it was widely accepted in the world at large at that time.

I think that when it comes to pregnancy, it is the woman's right to make her own decisions of her body unless she is mentally uncable of doing so for whatever reason. Then it becomes the right of the father of the unborn child. She may choose to allow the father to help in making the decisions, but the final word should be hers.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

And well put.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

And well put.


Said the cat that was nothing but a smile and no substance.

These texts, verify the Jewish and Jewish-Christian attitude of the first and second centuries, confirming that the earliest Christians shared the anti-abortion position of those whom do so today as well.

<sigh>

These new quotes do nothing for you other than prove your avoidance of my arguments.

1. You still are not quoting the Bible.

2. You still are ignoring the Bible passages that contradict your position.

3. You already conceded the early Judeo-Christian writings are divided on the issue.

4. You ignore the entire history of the Church beyond the first couple centuries.

5. Accepted at face value, you assertion is irrelevant. "[T]he earliest Christians shared the anti-abortion position of those whom do so today." So? Who cares? What does that prove? Nothing.

Said the cat that was nothing but a smile and no substance.

Mildly amusing. Especially coming from the one that has not responded to the substance of my posts.

Is English a secondary language to you? Perhaps you translate only with difficulty? That or you’ve given up actual discourse because what? Perhaps you've nothing left to say and have adopted an air of juvenile ridicule to try and hide that fact?


Curious... you have increased the level of vitriol, but at the apparent cost of rationality...

No, my friend, English is my first language... I can only work with what you give me, though.

I posted: "The soul is the 'life' in the flesh... nothing more. Try reading Genesis in the native tongue".

To which you responded: "That's what I said. You don't believe that we are any different than animals. If they do or don't have 'lifeforce' I don't know. But I'm betting that they don't have to worry about Sin".

Now - you need to note here, that your response was "That's what I said".

Is it any wonder then, that I assumed you were agreeing with that post?

In fact - if you NOW claim that you were NOT agreeing with that post, then I have NO idea what your response WAS supposed to mean.

I don't see the 'juvenile ridicule' that you accuse me of, and I'm not seeing much that I can engage in discourse with. I thought I understood what you meant by that post... so I responded.. but you now seem to be claiming that your meaning might not have been the same as the actual words you used.

If you can rephrase it, perhaps I can respond.


You know, as I do, that you only use the scripture in an attempt to belittle attempt to shake the faith of those weak in knowledge that do believe in it. Your disdain for scripture only disappears when I quote ancient writings that oppose your mistranslation of it and your false accusations that it’s been mistranslated by modern English translations.

As I’ve shown, the Judeo-Christian societies have, , been opposed to infanticide and abortion since the very beginning, before the cannon scripture was even assembled.

I do not care to shake the faith of anyone, through use of scripture, or otherwise. Persoanlly, I don't think TRUE faith COULD be shaken by my use of scripture, do you?

I have no disdain for scripture. I do not 'believe' it, and I think that some of the messages contained are barbaric, lacking in morality, and just plain wrong. But, as an entity, I appreciate 'scripture', just as I do any other text.

I am not sure how you can claim that ANY of my translations are mistranslations... I have yet to see you, personally, do ANY translation... all you have offered up is what is 'commercially' available. To me, that is a 'no-thought' process, since you are accepting a translation without ever trying to corroborate that translation yourself.

But, each to their own... so - I usually attempt to stay within the English translations when I debate with you. (If you do not believe you are gaining preferential treatment here, you might want to TG Neo Cannen, with whom I usually DO go into the Hebrew far more rigourously).

It is hardly my fault that, even in English, the Biblical scripture doesn't actually support you as well as you would like. 'Babies in the womb' content is not anti-abortion, by necessity.

What you have shown (if anything) with your Post-Biblical quotations, is that SOME members of the early Christian movement made commentary about abortion or infanticide. I call this irrelevent... since those are not the 'basis' of Christianity, but commentators after the fact.

I do not dispute their content... I just do not see any reason to consider it of any importance.

That's why it's relavent... 4 weeks, missed period, one more week of worry, one week to get tested, walla, 6 weeks, mother just found out, hearts already beating. It's the only reason I mentioned it.

Except -- as I already showed -- your little "mother just found out" at 6 weeks scenario is make-believe.

I already showed that 25% of abortions occur within the first 6 weeks and 59% occur within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.

Facts are just terribly inconvenient for you, aren't they?

Said the cat that was nothing but a smile and no substance.

It appears that someone is in fiesty form this evening....

That's what I said. You don't believe that we are any different than animals.

You made this strawman argument before.

It was answered.

Grave and I can make a principled, moral distinction between those entitled to a right to life and those that are not.

You have yet to offer any such distinction.

If they do or don't have 'lifeforce' I don't know. But I'm betting that they don't have to worry about Sin.

You've avoided the question asked more than once:

Do animals have a soul?

You appear to imply that you don't know. If you don't know, you can you justify killing them, but not fetuses? Hmmm.

I think that when it comes to pregnancy, it is the woman's right to make her own decisions of her body unless she is mentally uncable of doing so for whatever reason. Then it becomes the right of the father of the unborn child. She may choose to allow the father to help in making the decisions, but the final word should be hers.

I agree, however, I believe it should be done in the first tri-mester. Anything after that is a bit ridiculous unless the mother or baby's life is at stake. Any woman can decide within 3 months whether or not they want a child. Anything after that is just moronic, in my opinion. And yes, I'm a Christian, however, I don't believe everything written in the bible. Actually, a lot of it.
It's the woman's body, and to have someone else tell her what to do with it is an infringement on her rights. It is only MY opinion that the 1st trimester should be the cutoff, as it makes sense to me.

*snip*

You know, as I do, that you only use the scripture in when you attempt to belittle it or attempt to shake the faith of those weak in knowledge of it but that do believe in it. Your 'stance of disdain' for scripture only disappears when I quote ancient writings that oppose your mistranslation of it and your false accusations that it’s been mistranslated by modern English translations, and then you insist that we only what you know of it because it's 'cannon.'

Excuse me, Mr. "strong in knowledge of scripture," but you've been quote non-Biblical sources because you have no support in the Bible itself.

You've never responded to these points:

Numbers 5:12-31 "Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water....." This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nothing in the passage seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present.

Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person.

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.

Exodus 22:29"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." This is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews ritually murder their first son, sacrificing him to their god.

Leviticus 27:6 "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female ten shekels." A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

Numbers 3:15 "Take a census...including every male a month or more old." Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. An infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human.

You've never responded to Exodus 21:22 in light of the surrounding passages:

Exd 21:1 Now these [are] the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

Exd 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Exd 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death

Exd 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exd 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Exd 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Exd 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

So, God specifically prescribes death as the punishment for:
1. Striking and killing a man
2. Kidnapping and selling a person
3. Cursing one's parents
4. Owning a tempermental ox that kills someone
5. Being a witch
6. Bestiality

But killing an unborn child -- what you would call the "heinous" crime of abortion -- merits a fine.

As I’ve shown, the Judeo-Christian societies have always been opposed to infanticide and abortion, since the very beginning, before the cannon scripture was even assembled. And the Early Christians and Hebrews all practiced a faith that was opposed to the idea of it even though it was widely accepted in the world at large at that time.

Bullshit.

In fact, when comfronted with Judeo-Christian history that contradicted your revisionism you backed away, saying:

But I fail to see how that sort of posting is going to help either of us... I'm going to assume that you both are smart enough to be able to use rationale. Therefore, we should leave the scripture and ancient writings out of it because it proves nothing besides the fact that this debate has been going on for thousands of years, literally.

You never actually responded to the proof that Jews and Christians have not always held the views you do. Nor do they now.

You are citing a few selective non-Biblical sources and deliberately misrepresenting them as representative of all of Judeo-Christian history. You know better. You admitted so earlier.

Numbers 5:12-31 "Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water....." This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nothing in the passage seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. This ‘spell’ is not a description of an abortion at all. It’s a description of ‘applying the law’ on her to verify her innocence or guilt. If she confessed then it wouldn’t have gone this far. If her husband says she’s lying, this test would be done on her, if she ‘was’ lying and took the test, it looks like she was supposed to become infertile, sterilized. And then, in that day and age, if you were sterile and without child, you had no social security and no social standing in the community and would likely be divorced or worse, with no hope of ever being married again (being infertile and all no man would want you as his wife etc.).

But mainly, for the discussion between you and I, this has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person.
Are you suggesting that people on ventilators or iron lung or any other mechanical breathing device have perhaps lost their souls because they are not breathing? No?

You attempt to entirely ignore the fact that Adam seems to have never been a fetus at all, and thus, a soul couldn’t be implanted then. You could actually say that his soul was given to him within moments of his actual conception. God’s conception of Adam was to make him and immediately implant a soul in him within a few moments ~ entirely taking less than twenty-four hours. Adam’s story is suggesting that God gives our body’s souls on the same day as conception.

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

The opposite was true, all the readers of this story immediately see the great condemnation of Judah for this, not Tamar. She conceived on purpose and she was falsely accused of a capital punishment crime. The fetuses in question are HIS offspring after all. Tamar had found a way to fulfill Judah’s family obligation to her (she had a right to conceive a baby by the next eldest son after her husband had died and Judah refused her despite her righteous claim). This story tells of what extent she had a right and claim to have a fetus in the first place. That Judah was wrong for having denied her right to bear child (ren). This story shows the great value that was put on bearing children, not the meaninglessness of having children.


Exodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.

You Sir, have either been lied to or you are lying to us now… Yes it is true that infanticide occurred in other cultures, but it was condemned since Isaac and Ishmael.
How can you, over and over again, say that we are reading one thing when it says something entirely different each and every time? You go around espousing balderdash poppycock.

What it actually says is about ritual foods and circumcision. I’ll just quote it from the NIV, nobody will need me to explain it to them: Exodus 13
Consecration of the Firstborn
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal."
3 Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the LORD brought you out of it with a mighty hand. Eat nothing containing yeast. 4 Today, in the month of Abib, you are leaving. 5 When the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites and Jebusites—the land he swore to your forefathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey—you are to observe this ceremony in this month: 6 For seven days eat bread made without yeast and on the seventh day hold a festival to the LORD. 7 Eat unleavened bread during those seven days; nothing with yeast in it is to be seen among you, nor shall any yeast be seen anywhere within your borders. 8 On that day tell your son, 'I do this because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' 9 This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead that the law of the LORD is to be on your lips. For the LORD brought you out of Egypt with his mighty hand. 10 You must keep this ordinance at the appointed time year after year.


Exodus 22:29"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." This is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews ritually murder their first son, sacrificing him to their god.

Ritual sacrifice? WTH have you been reading? It’s called circumcision. The scripture here is telling them that they need to have their boys circumcised to the Lord on the eight day after their birth. This is not hard stuff to understand, how can you misconstrue it so badly? And, in addition to the circumcision stuff, that they shouldn’t hold back their tithing (10% offering) by hiding some of their stuff in the barn or anything like that…

25 "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. [e] 26 If you take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, 27 because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.
28 "Do not blaspheme God [f] or curse the ruler of your people.
29 "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [g]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
31 "You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs.

Wow, you are not just suggesting that you think abortion is supported by the scriptures but infanticide too? What nincompoopery. This is utter nonsense and is one of the reasons I wasn’t going to bother responding to your list of misrepresented scriptures in the first place. You have such a lack of understanding about them that when you say something is down it is actually saying up, and when you say it says left, it is really saying right.


Leviticus 27:6 "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female ten shekels." A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.
It is a sad truth that if your child is lost in an industrial accident today, or a accident at school etc., the courts would assign damages lower because of her age, and it’s sad, really sad. But, the courts determine loss on a monetary value of how much loss in revenue will be felt by the loss of the child to the family income. It’s sad even in this day and age, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, its about assigning damages by damage done.

Numbers 3:15 "Take a census...including every male a month or more old." Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. An infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human.
Actually that’s not the reason they weren’t counted, not at all. The reason these very young babies had to be at least a month old before being counted was because the governing powers wanted to try and get as accurate a census as possible. They didn’t want to count babies that might quickly die after being counted, so many didn’t live to be a month old (a month in age ensured things like properly functioning heart, lungs and digestive tract were working etc.,) and the sad truth is, that an extremely high percentage of Baby’s in that day and age would die of various illnesses that are commonly resolved in today’s hospitals without remark now but were deadly then. If they counted all births in their census taking, the number of early infant deaths would have throw off the census count entirely by counting those under a month old.

-----


When you get right down to it: the Bible doesn’t say much directly against things like genocide, pedophilia, abortion, murdering a cloned person, cheating on your taxes or finals at school etc, falsely accepting welfare or social security checks, nor does it say much about committing plagiarism nor beating your wife’s dog… But you know what? It doesn’t need to. The condemnation of those actions are found in the spirit of the laws, not the details.

But you know what is in the details of the laws? One thing called, ‘giving false witness.’ You know, saying something you know not to be true just to get someone else convicted?

Well, are you SURE that you actually believed those unrelated to abortion quotes made be respond to? They are a testimony against you because you misrepresented them so badly, you said such made-up and horribly wrong things about them. You wouldn’t give false witness on purpose just to try and confuse people around here would you?

So, God specifically prescribes death as the punishment for:
1. Striking and killing a man
2. Kidnapping and selling a person
3. Cursing one's parents
4. Owning a tempermental ox that kills someone
5. Being a witch
6. Bestiality

But killing an unborn child -- what you would call the "heinous" crime of abortion -- merits a fine.

If it comes to a vote, I’m voting against it, if it comes to someone asking if its right or wrong, I’m telling them it’s wrong. If a man tells a woman to abort their baby I say he’s more than equally guilty, he’s an abomination. He’s supposed to be her support and helping hand, he let her and the baby down and failed them both in the utmost way, in their greatest hour of need.

I say we lynch the men who impregnated these women and then abandoned them like that or told them to get an abortion… they’re the ones mostly at fault.

My god, I find it hard to believe how wrong... and how CONSISTENTLY wrong, you are!

No wonder you didn't want the conversation turning to religion!

I also notice that you just conveniently 'ignore' the parts of posts you don't like. Seems a little sad to me.

This ‘spell’ is not a description of an abortion at all. It’s a description of ‘applying the law’ on her to verify her innocence or guilt. If she confessed then it wouldn’t have gone this far. If her husband says she’s lying, this test would be done on her, if she ‘was’ lying and took the test, it looks like she was supposed to become infertile, sterilized. And then, in that day and age, if you were sterile and without child, you had no social security and no social standing in the community and would likely be divorced or worse, with no hope of ever being married again (being infertile and all no man would want you as his wife etc.).

But mainly, for the discussion between you and I, this has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.


I find it amusing that you refer to one of the tabernacle trials as a 'spell'. Curious that you lump Hebrew religion in with pagan practices in this way.

You are leading a wild goose chase, my friend. The withering of thighs, etc almost certainly DOES mean infertility... but you are avoiding making the connection that a women who BECOMES infertile WITH CHILD, will obviously abort. So - in the case of adultery - they used a liquid toxin to abort the foetus. That is abortion expressly condoned within biblical pages.

Instead, you attempt to shamelessly 'divert' the attention by somehow making this a deal about if the woman had 'admitted' her sins... irrelevence.


Are you suggesting that people on ventilators or iron lung or any other mechanical breathing device have perhaps lost their souls because they are not breathing? No?

You attempt to entirely ignore the fact that Adam seems to have never been a fetus at all, and thus, a soul couldn’t be implanted then. You could actually say that his soul was given to him within moments of his actual conception. God’s conception of Adam was to make him and immediately implant a soul in him within a few moments ~ entirely taking less than twenty-four hours. Adam’s story is suggesting that God gives our body’s souls on the same day as conception.


Takign a few moments to look at scripture: Genesis 2:7 states: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Now, a quick look at ‎the Hebrew, tells us that the words for the breath of life are [Neshamah Chay].

Examining Genesis 7:22 for the casualties of the flood, we see "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died".

Now - looking at the Hebrew again, we find 'breath of life' is the given translation of [Ruwach Neshamah] - which might have been better translated 'Spirit breath'.

Regardless - the term for 'breath' is still [Neshamah] - so we are clearly examining the same phenomenon... the act of breathing is the definition of life... and the 'spirit' and/or 'life' is IN the breath.

So - by Genesis reckoning - breathing is required for 'life'... and that which does not breath, does not 'live'.

Genesis says that the unborn foetus is, therefore, not 'alive'.

By the way - what do you mean by 'day of conception'? You are aware, of course, that conception isn't one action - but a complex series of mechanisms, which takes more than 24 hours to complete? Which 'minute' are you arguing here, as the moment that the soul would be created?


The opposite was true, all the readers of this story immediately see the great condemnation of Judah for this, not Tamar. She conceived on purpose and she was falsely accused of a capital punishment crime. The fetuses in question are HIS offspring after all. Tamar had found a way to fulfill Judah’s family obligation to her (she had a right to conceive a baby by the next eldest son after her husband had died and Judah refused her despite her righteous claim). This story tells of what extent she had a right and claim to have a fetus in the first place. That Judah was wrong for having denied her right to bear child (ren). This story shows the great value that was put on bearing children, not the meaninglessness of having children.


I disagree - the ONLY condemnation upon Judah is that he did not give the woman to his son. There is no 'outcry' in the text over his decision to burn a pregnant woman. Don't pervert the text by adding what isn't there.


You Sir, have either been lied to or you are lying to us now… Yes it is true that infanticide occurred in other cultures, but it was condemned since Isaac and Ishmael.
How can you, over and over again, say that we are reading one thing when it says something entirely different each and every time? You go around espousing balderdash poppycock.

What it actually says is about ritual foods and circumcision. I’ll just quote it from the NIV, nobody will need me to explain it to them:


Actually - the text makes it very clear that the Hebrews SHOULD sacrifice their firstborn sons, but that Jehovah ALLOWS them not to, IF they 'buy' the life of the firstborn with another sacrifice. It also - by setting a precedent of substitution, implies that the Hebrews had, thus far, been sacrificing ALL their firstborn sons.

Exodus 13:15 "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem".

The comparison to Egypt and the slaughter or the Egyptian firstborn, implies that this sacrifice is expected of the Hebrews in recompense... but, as I said, it can be 'bought' instead - unless, of course, the parents HAVE no sacrificial animals... then the child MUST be sacrificed.


On your other point, you are very wrong. Not only is infanticide 'allowed', it is cause of blessing, if you do it to someone else's children.

Psalms 137:8-9 "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us... Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones".

A clear call to the 'good' Hebrew to carry out infanticide.

Further evidence of infanticide and abortion is given in the judgements of god, as given in the prophecies of Isaiah. Once again - the victim is (apparently) Babylon, but look at the threats - they are unmistakable.

Isaiah 13:16-18 " Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished... Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it... Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children".

Look carefully - the judgement of god is rape, infanticide, murder, and abortion. Explicit in the text. There is no way to argue against it.


Ritual sacrifice? WTH have you been reading? It’s called circumcision. The scripture here is telling them that they need to have their boys circumcised to the Lord on the eight day after their birth. This is not hard stuff to understand, how can you misconstrue it so badly? And, in addition to the circumcision stuff, that they shouldn’t hold back their tithing (10% offering) by hiding some of their stuff in the barn or anything like that…


Once again, I have to argue with your playing fast-and-loose with the scripture. Exodus 22:29 in couple with 22:30, makes it CLEAR what the nature of sacrifice is, and it is not 'circumcision':"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me... Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me". Unless you are arguing that the Hebrews circumcised their flocks, also?


Wow, you are not just suggesting that you think abortion is supported by the scriptures but infanticide too? What nincompoopery. This is utter nonsense and is one of the reasons I wasn’t going to bother responding to your list of misrepresented scriptures in the first place. You have such a lack of understanding about them that when you say something is down it is actually saying up, and when you say it says left, it is really saying right.


Already adressed this above. Infantice and abortion are both in the scripture... and explicit, at that. It is hardly 'nincompoopery' to spot that.


It is a sad truth that if your child is lost in an industrial accident today, or a accident at school etc., the courts would assign damages lower because of her age, and it’s sad, really sad. But, the courts determine loss on a monetary value of how much loss in revenue will be felt by the loss of the child to the family income. It’s sad even in this day and age, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, its about assigning damages by damage done.


That isn't what the text says. The text says that an estimation is required... but ONLY for those aged one month or older. ALL other ages are covered, but no value is assigned to the child of less than 4 weeks. It is nothing to do with 'damages'... it seems that Leviticus 27 is about tithing, not reparation.


Actually that’s not the reason they weren’t counted, not at all. The reason these very young babies had to be at least a month old before being counted was because the governing powers wanted to try and get as accurate a census as possible. They didn’t want to count babies that might quickly die after being counted, so many didn’t live to be a month old (a month in age ensured things like properly functioning heart, lungs and digestive tract were working etc.,) and the sad truth is, that an extremely high percentage of Baby’s in that day and age would die of various illnesses that are commonly resolved in today’s hospitals without remark now but were deadly then. If they counted all births in their census taking, the number of early infant deaths would have throw off the census count entirely by counting those under a month old.



You are missing the point.... they didn't 'count'. Infant mortality WAS high - but not limited to one month... but that is irrelevent... the fact is, in a tabulation of ALL living persons the very old were counted, as were the injured, the dying and the sick. Thus, it is a poor excuse to say that newborns were ignored for a matter of 'risk'.

You note that children below one month AND foetuses are ALL ignored. That is because, under Hebrew law, they effectively were not 'alive'.


When you get right down to it: the Bible doesn’t say much directly against things like genocide, pedophilia, abortion, murdering a cloned person, cheating on your taxes or finals at school etc, falsely accepting welfare or social security checks, nor does it say much about committing plagiarism nor beating your wife’s dog… But you know what? It doesn’t need to. The condemnation of those actions are found in the spirit of the laws, not the details.


Actually - when genocide is mentioned, it is usually portrayed as a positive thing... such as the various commandments for the Hebrews to ruthlessly butcher their neighbours, and steal their land.

Also - as I have pointed out, abortions and infanticide actually take on the roles of positive actions in SOME scripture.


But you know what is in the details of the laws? One thing called, ‘giving false witness.’ You know, saying something you know not to be true just to get someone else convicted?

Well, are you SURE that you actually believed those unrelated to abortion quotes made be respond to? They are a testimony against you because you misrepresented them so badly, you said such made-up and horribly wrong things about them. You wouldn’t give false witness on purpose just to try and confuse people around here would you?


So - you have no argument... you are backed into a corner... you are proved to have less than complete understanding of scripture, so how do you respond?

"False Witness! False Witness!"

A pretty pathetic attempt to try to defame the poster, when the source material works against you.


If it comes to a vote, I’m voting against it, if it comes to someone asking if its right or wrong, I’m telling them it’s wrong. If a man tells a woman to abort their baby I say he’s more than equally guilty, he’s an abomination. He’s supposed to be her support and helping hand, he let her and the baby down and failed them both in the utmost way, in their greatest hour of need.

I say we lynch the men who impregnated these women and then abandoned them like that or told them to get an abortion… they’re the ones mostly at fault.

Judge not... surely?

So? What was your point? Is your position that the aborted fetus was not a life yet, as you suggest by the first part of your post, or is it not as 'valuable' a human as you say in the end of the post?

My position is irrelevant, as is yours. The point is that even the Bible very clearly makes a distinction between the born and unborn. On top of that, the main point is what we can put into law - somethign we should not attempt to do with our religion.

My actual position is that I don't know when an embryo or fetus becomes life according to God, and for that reason and others, I would not ever have an abortion. I do know when we can objectively argue for calling it a human life, and that is when I believe that the law can extend protections to it.

Either way I find it ironic that people that make public stances that espouse the position that God does NOT reach down from the heavens to performs miracles on earth, at least not on a personal and daily basis because he invented or created the world to run on it’s own, but then turn around for the abortion issue by saying things like "It's not human ... yet"

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I haven't seen any such positions.

All of a sudden your evolution isn’t necessary anymore and it's like you seem to expect Angels to sing and Trumpets to sound when God determines that it's time to deposit a soul during the (insert choice here: 12th week, 3rd trimester or the moment the baby's head breaks through the rim of the cervix [provided it’s not being pulled out my a doctor’s tools ~ cause then the angels would know NOT to insert a soul in it cause it’s just a lump of cells] or any other point of pregnancy that you may have determined to be the moment) so that just then, at that exact moment, the Angel of life can implant a soul into it and write it’s name in the book of life. Magically turning it from a growing clod of cells and into a person... It sounds like maybe you do believe in the before and after miracle event on earth after all?

Did I ever say that I don't believe in miracles?

And what does that have to do with evolution? Oh wait, nothing.

You accuse me of being shallow in the regards that I expect everyone else to share my moral codes, you’ve said so in many a post.

*nod*

And I do. I expect them not to hurt each other and I will object when they do hurt each other.

This is all I expect. You go further. You wish to define something that cannot be objectively defined as a human being to count because your personal morals say that it should. I, on the other hand, do not wish to force my personal morals on others, so I wait until the time when I can objectively place those restrictions.

But honestly, you ask much more than I do. You ask us to suspend all moral codes as yours is the only one relevant, you ask us to look the other way as you smother the ‘breath of life’ so that it won’t breath it’s first breath.

Point to any post in which I have asked you to suspend any moral codes? Point to any post in which I have said I would have an abortion or that someone should have one? Point to any post where I have stated that I advocate abortion for myself or others?

And what would you have proposed for the penalty IF the value of the fetus was actually worth as much as a baby?

Death, probably by stoning - considering that is what a man would get if he killed a human being.

I was going to leave it for tonight, but you guys just don't get it. There is as much stuff for one side as the other if that's the entire point.

Exactly! So why do you think you can force your personal views on others?

That's why it's relavent... 4 weeks, missed period, one more week of worry, one week to get tested, walla, 6 weeks, mother just found out, hearts already beating. It's the only reason I mentioned it.

Did they have pregnancy tests in ancient Hebrew or early Christian society? As others have pointed out, you have - at best - a feeling that abortion is wrong after the pregnancy gets to a point that others are aware of it (ie. after the woman starts to show and, in general, after the quickening.) No one has disputed that point in the least. They didn't exactly have tests to do back then though that would reveal a pregnancy at 4, 6, or even 8 weeks - when most abortion are now carried out.

When you get right down to it: the Bible doesn’t say much directly against things like genocide, pedophilia, abortion, murdering a cloned person, cheating on your taxes or finals at school etc, falsely accepting welfare or social security checks, nor does it say much about committing plagiarism nor beating your wife’s dog… But you know what? It doesn’t need to. The condemnation of those actions are found in the spirit of the laws, not the details.

Just to clarify one thing here. The Bible very clearly condones genocide. In fact, the ancient Hebrews are punished for not fully completing their genocide of the Caananites.

Well, are you SURE that you actually believed those unrelated to abortion quotes made be respond to? They are a testimony against you because you misrepresented them so badly, you said such made-up and horribly wrong things about them. You wouldn’t give false witness on purpose just to try and confuse people around here would you?

Wow, aren't you just judge and jury. Shall you begin throwing stones now?

Someone has a different interpretation than you and they are suddenly intentionally misleading people?

<snip> .
Post was too long to quote, but needed to make sure what post is being addressed:

I’m starting to wonder where you received your instruction in this topic? The study in the Hebrew Bible is itself subdivided into different specializations, various related disciplines and fields. Bible and the History of Israel, Bible and Archaeology, Bible and Semitic Theology, Bible and Christian Theology, or perhaps you just learned it on your own or for non-religious sectarian reasons? But since you can read ancient Hebrew but you then used that to make all these odd claims that don’t seem to be archaeologically nor theologically inspired, I don’t get it. You don’t seem to have a background in basic archaeological studies of the field, nor a general grasp of the contemporary world at that time via other ancient civilization studies, or you just refuse to use anything else to help you understand what you are reading. I can’t say.

Neither can I say as I’ve ever heard more outlandish nonsense from people that claim to know what is written in the scripture, not from anyone other than maybe from people that propagate ideas that the Bible proves stuff about UFO’s, Aliens, Atlantis, Freemasonry, the Bible Code and other complete rubbish as that anyway.

If you were to suggest your interpretation that, “sanctifying your first born on the 8th day” passages was actually intended as instruction to practice ritual infanticide, and not for performing circumcision in the ancient Hebrew society, and you submitted this idea in a collegiate environment or a theological forum outside of an anti-bible forum anyway, I I think you would be escorted to the door and people would be asking themselves who let you in, in the first place. Such a bluntly over-emphasis on certain words might seem to be a purely anti-Semitic attack for it’s own sake if it came from any other source.

Not only was infanticide illegal for the ancient Hebrew, it was illegal for a Hebrew to allow a foreigner to practice infanticide in Isreal…

The Lord said to Moses, say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for bygiving his children to Molech he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 1 will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.
(Leviticus 20:1-5; see also 18:21)

And before you claim that this bit was about not worshiping Molech, not about Infanticide itself, I’ll continue.

In Deuteronomy, God through Moses rejects child sacrifice even if allegedly done in the worship and service of God Himself 29 The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same." 31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deut. 12:29-31)

This was of course in reference to the nations of Canaan that Israel was about to invade and dispossess and the worship of their gods.

Although there are many passages in the Old Testament condemning child sacrifice, among other practices, it might be unclear to a person with your temperament whether this is for humanitarian reasons or purely because these sacrificial rituals are directed to other gods and particularly the other nations. However, Deut. 18: 9-13: 9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you . 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.



Perhaps you will say that Ezekiel 20:25 goes so far as to admit that child sacrifice was both ordered by Yahweh and as a punishment for the fact the Hebrews did not destroy the other nations, but mingled with them: "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." I say that child sacrifice did take place, but that it was when the Hebrews did not follow God that they performed these rites. They followed idols and worshiped the Gods of the people they were supposed to have completely destroyed; allowing them to live allowed the abomination blood sacrifice to continue in the culture… The very fact that they didn’t do what they were told, “wipe out the people that would come to teach the idea infanticide,” allowed the survivors to influence their own people with the idea of infanticide, only possible because the idea was not abolished as God had intended when He ordered their genocide at the hands of the Hebrew in the first place.

It’s much like in Job, lots of people get angry at the idea that God allowed an innocent man to be tested and his family members killed off for no fault of his own, they argue that God wouldn’t have allowed it. But in Job, it’s not just allowed, it’s mandated. The same is true here with Ezekiel. All power and glory is given to God, saying that nothing can happen without him ordaining it, but it clearly also shows that it (infanticide) is NOT the way to worship God and says that we should not live that way.

Then, after all of the theology, we can come to the historians point of view. There has been wide acceptance of the idea that infanticide was commonly practiced in the region of Canaan and Carthage (for example) during that time, but even that has come into scholarly question. Recently, doubts have been voiced about such reports of child sacrifice among the Phoenicians. Sabatino Moscati stresses that neither in cosmopolitan Carthage nor in the Phoenician city-states were the gods' favors courted by the systematic burning of children. Child corpses in the children's cemeteries (Tophets), which have often been viewed as sites of child sacrifice, showed no sign of violence. The skeletons were of fetuses, stillborn babies, or children dead from sickness who had been interred in the sacred precincts. Moscati thinks the reports of child sacrifice among the Phoenicians are hostile propaganda by Greek and Roman historians, at least as far as any regular sacrifice of children is concerned." (Ranke-Heinmann 1992 286-8.).

If you were to suggest your interpretation that, “sanctifying your first born on the 8th day” passages was actually intended as instruction to practice ritual infanticide, and not for performing circumcision in the ancient Hebrew society, and you submitted this idea in a collegiate environment or a theological forum outside of an anti-bible forum anyway, I I think you would be escorted to the door and people would be asking themselves who let you in, in the first place.

Did you actually read what Grave has written? He specifically said that circumcision was allowed in place of infanticide. In other words, the firstborn son was circumcized (and I believe an animal sacrificed) instead of the sacrifice of the child. Sacrifice was called for but circumcision was allowed instead. I have heard this interpretation in theology as well.

Also, it isn't very different from the idea that the price of sin is death, but atonement allows us a way out.

How should these be divided between the mother and father?

May I assume that the father is more than just a donor from the local sperm bank? If so, I would say 50-50, although that is kind of tough to divide up during the pregnancy part. But in general, men should not get the short end of the stick all the time just because they don't get pregnant.

My oldest son was in a relationship with a woman back when he was in the military over 5 years ago - or at least, he thought he was in a relationship. As it turned out, she was just using him as a sperm donor who would also be able to provide her with child support for at least 18 years. She more or less admitted this to him later on when she told him she didn't want a husband - she just wanted a child. He hasn't even seen his daughter since she was born, although about a third of his net paycheck goes to her mother, allowing her to buy a house. Of course, my son can't buy a house - he couldn't even begin to afford one. Up until recently, he and his present wife and their daughter were living in a low-income apartment - until his wife got tired of trying to live on the $300 a month they had left after the child support and rent payments were made and left with their daughter. Now it looks like he may have to go through a divorce and more child support payments as well. Of course, the courts don't care that they are forcing the father and any subsequent family he may have (which may very well include children) to live in abject poverty - as long as the unwed mother can buy a home - even though she intentionally chose that path for herself without him even being aware of her plans until it is too late.

There is something terribly wrong with a system that encourages women to use men as sperm donors, in my opinion - although I do have to admit that it would be very difficult to prove that this was the case. But still, a young man who isn't making much more than minimum wage should not have to pay out that much of his check in child support. Another gripe I have is the fact that he is paying out such a large chunk of his income, and he isn't even allowed to claim the child as his dependent!!! Now how blatantly unfair can you get?!

Don't see the irony?

Why would you have to lobby for something that is already legal... unless someone is putting pressure on opposing it....

So - perhaps people have to spend money to guarantee their liberties from those who would take them away...


Not really. But that is a perspective issue. I see the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be a high priority than the mother's to murder that child. I see current interpretation of the law to be little more than a contrived means of making murder legal to remove personal responsibility from the actions of horny people who refuse to exersize self-control. IMO, it is already illegal to commit an abortion/murder, and that it is only a misapplication of existing laws that has allowed them to occur as "legal".

But - since I suspect you are referring only to humans... it is possible for humans to reproduce parthenogenetically, also... just very unlikely.

And, since I further suspect you were talking about a specific religious event... why ignore the fact that Jesus isn't the first religious figure to have been alleged as 'born of a virgin'... and ALL have the same amount of evidence to that claim?

Are there any scientifically documented cases of parthenogenetic reproduction in humanity... I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'd just be surprised it wasn't bigger news.

As for the last paragraph, I think you are stretching to say that "ALL have the same amount of evidence". I'll grant you that none of them have the capacity to be scientifically tested or even mutliple source (unless you are willing to count mutliple Biblical authors) verified.

Not really. But that is a perspective issue. I see the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be a high priority than the mother's to murder that child.

However, as you do not have an objective reason for seeing an embryo as a child, you should be focusing on trying to convince others of your ideas, rather than trying to legislate your personal morals upon them.

I see current interpretation of the law to be little more than a contrived means of making murder legal to remove personal responsibility from the actions of horny people who refuse to exersize self-control.

Your lack of any attempt to understand the position of those who disagree with you, your lack of empathy, and your very clear need to demonize people well beyond any reasonable representation of them is amazing.

However, as you do not have an objective reason for seeing an embryo as a child, you should be focusing on trying to convince others of your ideas, rather than trying to legislate your personal morals upon them.

Your lack of any attempt to understand the position of those who disagree with you, your lack of empathy, and your very clear need to demonize people well beyond any reasonable representation of them is amazing.

LOL,

You just did to him everything you accused him of doing to others :D

Why does your empathy out-weigh Personal's empathy? Why doesn't Personal have the same rights as everyone else to express opinion and encourage legislation accordingly?

The entire legalities of the Roe vs. Wade issue haven’t really been discussed in this thread at all.

However, as you do not have an objective reason for seeing an embryo as a child, you should be focusing on trying to convince others of your ideas, rather than trying to legislate your personal morals upon them.



Your lack of any attempt to understand the position of those who disagree with you, your lack of empathy, and your very clear need to demonize people well beyond any reasonable representation of them is amazing.

My rationale is as objective as any other humans opinion. You just don't like my definition of what consitutes human life and because you don't understand it you claim that it is less objective than your own. Objective reality can only be defined by the all knowing and none of us fit that catagory and there-by all of our ideas (mine included) are subjective at best...

BTW, I'm not trying to legislate my personal morals on anyone, I'm only asking that the current laws be enforced. I have no desire to demonize anyone and I hold a very high level of concern for/empathy for people caught in the very difficult circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy, I just disagree with your solution for that problem as I can't justify murder for the sake of making people feel better about themselves or to make their lives easier or less complicated. Further, I do understand the positions of others, I just disagree with many of them. I do believe this is, at best, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I do think that you have adopted your position in an attempt to be as correct on the issue of human rights as possible. I have done the same. It is possible that we have come to different conclusions though having the same level of compasion and care for others. For you to imply otherwise is rather insulting.

*snip*

The entire legalities of the Roe vs. Wade issue haven’t really been discussed in this thread at all.

Oh, please don't throw us in that briar patch!

If your legal analysis is as sharp as your Biblical review, this should be most amusing.

My rationale is as objective as any other humans opinion.

Only because you embrace a total relativism and subjectivity. Which makes all knowledge and opinions about everything purely subjective.

Such an extreme view makes all discourse pointless.

You just don't like my definition of what consitutes human life and because you don't understand it you claim that it is less objective than your own.

You have yet to provide a defensible definition of personhood.

What entities are and are not entitled to a right to life? Why and why not?

Objective reality can only be defined by the all knowing and none of us fit that catagory and there-by all of our ideas (mine included) are subjective at best...

So, all human ideas are subjective and relative.

That would include any ideas of God.

I love it when Christians turn to relativism when they can't defend their views logically.

BTW, I'm not trying to legislate my personal morals on anyone, I'm only asking that the current laws be enforced.

Bullshit. You've made clear you disagree with the law in the United States re abortion. You would change it to force women to conform to your view.

I have no desire to demonize anyone and I hold a very high level of concern for/empathy for people caught in the very difficult circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy, I just disagree with your solution for that problem as I can't justify murder for the sake of making people feel better about themselves or to make their lives easier or less complicated. Further, I do understand the positions of others, I just disagree with many of them. I do believe this is, at best, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I do think that you have adopted your position in an attempt to be as correct on the issue of human rights as possible. I have done the same. It is possible that we have come to different conclusions though having the same level of compasion and care for others. For you to imply otherwise is rather insulting.

You claim sympathy and compassion and yet belittle pregnant women in the same breath.

Over half of all women in the US have an abortion by the time they are 45.

Over 60% already have a child when they have an abortion.

You trivialize the moral judgment of over half the female population and call it "compassion."

You have yet to provide a defensible definition of personhood.

What entities are and are not entitled to a right to life? Why and why not?
This wasn't addressed to me, but let me try it.

Perhaps, personhood could be described as; unique Human DNA embodied.

You could add more, such as, an organism that is fully capable of maturing and/or reproducing offspring of it's own if left unmolested (i.e., it's already planted and maturity at the normal human rate). But that's not necessary I think.

Did they have pregnancy tests in ancient Hebrew or early Christian society? As others have pointed out, you have - at best - a feeling that abortion is wrong after the pregnancy gets to a point that others are aware of it (ie. after the woman starts to show and, in general, after the quickening.) No one has disputed that point in the least. They didn't exactly have tests to do back then though that would reveal a pregnancy at 4, 6, or even 8 weeks - when most abortion are now carried out.

In a second or later pregnancy, there are some telltale signs that suggest pregnancy... a sort of 'butterfly' feeling, or a bubbling sensation that indicate some early foetal movements.

These movements turn up around the 15-16 weeks mark - far later than Ph33rdom is suggesting as the noticable point. At 15 weeks, you are unlikely to even be able to 'see' a pregnancy... more likely you MIGHT feel some 'guarding' on the lower abdominal wall.

In the case of a first pregnancy, these 'bubbling' feelings might be assumed to be digestion. So - in the first pregnancy, the first indicator is likely to be when the foetus starts making 'face shapes', like frowning. At this point, it is possible to actually feel pressure... this is around the 17-18 week.

Oh - one last point, since Ph33rdom is missing an imprtant detail... the mothers wouldn't necessarily have even noiced an interruption in menstruation - since many women have 'breatkthrough bleeding' even when pregnant.

Not that it is important, overall - I just wanted to point out that the average Hebrew women probably KNEW she was pregnant in her fourth month, which is way out of the ballpark we have been discussing here.

The entire legalities of the Roe vs. Wade issue haven’t really been discussed in this thread at all.

This should be fun.

I can deal with your weird version of the bible well enough... but, if you bring Roe v's Wade into it... Cat-Tribes is going to be handing you your donkey on a silver platter....

This wasn't addressed to me, but let me try it.

Perhaps, personhood could be described as; unique Human DNA embodied.

You could add more, such as, an organism that is fully capable of maturing and/or reproducing offspring of it's own if left unmolested (i.e., it's already planted and maturity at the normal human rate). But that's not necessary I think.

I absolutely agree... although I would have erred a little earlier, and I certainly did not expect to see YOU take this line.

So - we are agreed, it is a person, once it can walk and feed itself.

I absolutely agree... although I would have erred a little earlier, and I certainly did not expect to see YOU take this line.

So - we are agreed, it is a person, once it can walk and feed itself.
Then by that logic, abortion wouldn't be considered "killing a person", would it?

This wasn't addressed to me, but let me try it.

Perhaps, personhood could be described as; unique Human DNA embodied.

You could add more, such as, an organism that is fully capable of maturing and/or reproducing offspring of it's own if left unmolested (i.e., it's already planted and maturity at the normal human rate). But that's not necessary I think.
If personhood is defined by unique DNA, then you yourself are at least several thousand different people. Various cells in your body have sustained numerous different mutations in their DNA, and are genetically distinct from other cells in your body. Also, the mitochondria inside each of your cells is a human person, since it has completely different DNA of its own.

Additionally, if you decide that unique human DNA within a certain level of mutation variation is what defines personhood, then identical siblings only have one personhood to share between them; identical or conjoined twins are only one person, and idential tripplets would need to split their personhood three ways.

So, clearly, it really is quite necessary to use more than unique human DNA to define human personhood.

LOL,

You just did to him everything you accused him of doing to others :D

Why does your empathy out-weigh Personal's empathy? Why doesn't Personal have the same rights as everyone else to express opinion and encourage legislation accordingly?

Actually, Demi didn't do any of that. Demi understands and respects Personal's opinion, and fully supports his right to hold that opinion and to live based on it in whatever way he feels best. However, unlike Personal, Demi also understands that the right to choose is about a personal, private decision, and that no person has the right to make such a choice for another person. Personal doesn't believe abortion is right, so Personal doesn't need to choose abortion; Demi also would not choose abortion for herself, but she isn't an arrogant jackass who needs to force all other women to choose the way she would choose.

Obviously everyone has the right to try to get legislation passed that supports their opinions. However, everybody also has the right to refer to every person they meet as an "ugly stupid poophead." Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean it's wise, mature, or reasonable to do it. To try to invade other citizens' privacy and dictate what they can do with their own bodies is cowardly, pathetic, and shameful, and it's my "right" to point out that fact whenever anti-choice folks start trying to legislate their egos.

Not really. But that is a perspective issue. I see the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be a high priority than the mother's to murder that child. I see current interpretation of the law to be little more than a contrived means of making murder legal to remove personal responsibility from the actions of horny people who refuse to exersize self-control. IMO, it is already illegal to commit an abortion/murder, and that it is only a misapplication of existing laws that has allowed them to occur as "legal".

Well, you and I will quibble over the word child... since I don't think you can really accurately describe a three week conceptus as a 'child' in all rationality.

I am most inclined to suggest a starting point of 'life', if you will, at about the twentieth week... since it is in the 20th-22nd week period that the neural network of the brain is effectively 'operational', and I prefer to err close to the START of that period, than towards the END.

Since most abortions (certainly elective ones) will occur FAR before that point, I don't see any issues of the 'rights' of the foetus... since non-living entities do not get rights.

My car has no rights of it's own, my computer has no rights of it's own, my dinner has no rights of it's own.

It is, perhaps, an unpleasant way to state it, but, UNTIL that foetus has a 'brain' (a functional brain unit, I'm not asking for higher cognitive skills), it is just 'meat', just tissue. Thus - it has the same 'rights' as any other unwanted tissue in the body... that is, none.

I disagree with your 'horny people' analogy. A huge number of abortions are unwanted second (or later) children within the confines of a sanctioned relationship, between adults who were careful.

Second to that, as a resident of the more backwater part of Georgia - I have been witness to the fact that this deliberately fostered aversion to discussing sex, especially to talk of sex-safety, is FORCING unwanted pregnancies on teenage girls. Often they have been raised being TOLD that the woman must submit to the man... often they have unprotected sex because they know no better... often they get pregnant without even KNOWING HOW the pregnancy occured.

This is a problem I have seen with my own eyes - a deliberate fostering of ignorance, followed by blaming the pregnant girl for her condition.

Did you know that pregnancy used to be sufficient legal grounds to overturn a rape allegation?

The logic went:

Pregnancy occurs when the woman orgasms.
Rape is a non-consensual sex act.
If the woman conceives, she MUST have orgasmed.
If the woman orgasmed, she MUST have enjoyed it.
If the woman enjoyed it, it MUST have been consensual.

Thus, a pregnant woman cannot have been raped.

I think we are veering dangerously close to that kind of thinking again, in some areas.

Then by that logic, abortion wouldn't be considered "killing a person", would it?

I don't believe that LEGAL abortions (i.e. pre-20 weeks) are possible to construe as 'killing a person', anyway.

I was just surprised to see Ph33rdom apparently agreeing...

I don't believe that LEGAL abortions (i.e. pre-20 weeks) are possible to construe as 'killing a person', anyway.

I was just surprised to see Ph33rdom apparently agreeing...
I know. I've been skimming the thread. Maybe Ph33rdom is away on break right now, but I suspect he'll be a bit upset at this conclusion if he can find this thread when he comes back. :D

If personhood is defined by unique DNA, then you yourself are at least several thousand different people. Various cells in your body have sustained numerous different mutations in their DNA, and are genetically distinct from other cells in your body. Also, the mitochondria inside each of your cells is a human person, since it has completely different DNA of its own.

Additionally, if you decide that unique human DNA within a certain level of mutation variation is what defines personhood, then identical siblings only have one personhood to share between them; identical or conjoined twins are only one person, and idential tripplets would need to split their personhood three ways.

So, clearly, it really is quite necessary to use more than unique human DNA to define human personhood.

Ah - Bottle - I knew I could depend on you!

I believe we raised this earlier in the thread, and I pointed out that human bodies have 'unique' DNA within them that is NOT destructive external matter, or some weird cancerous aberration.

But, although I have seen the material before... I was unable to find a link.

I also pointed out to whoever-it-was that I was illustrating it to, that mitochondrial DNA is unique, in comparison to 'other' DNA... and I CAN find sources for that.

If you have a source for the variant DNA within a body... I'd be overjoyed if you'd post it. :)

(Actually, I HAD believed that 'unique DNA' idea had been 'retired' already - with my mtDNA comment, but here it comes again, I guess).

I absolutely agree... although I would have erred a little earlier, and I certainly did not expect to see YOU take this line.

So - we are agreed, it is a person, once it can walk and feed itself.

I said embodied, I never said anything about walking and feeding itself. You guys stopped reading at the DNA stuff because you've been arguing with other people that stopped at saying DNA, so the different types of DNA that everyone has is not relavent to my statement.

Different topic: the pregnancy test, just cause you guys were discussing it, there is more info about that if Demi is really interested. I would have answered it specifically but I thought it was rhetorical.

I don’t know how valid it is as I’ve never tested it myself, but there is historical evidence that people had access to pregnancy tests. The oldest recorded written record that I’m aware of was from a pre-exodus medical book from ancient Egypt.

I’ll post the NIH’s (national Institute of Health) verification of the possible reliability of the test. they say the following:


1350 BCE
One of the earliest written records of a urine-based pregnancy test can be found in an ancient Egyptian document. A papyrus described a test in which a woman who might be pregnant could urinate on wheat and barley seeds over the course of several days: “If the barley grows, it means a male child. If the wheat grows, it means a female child. If both do not grow, she will not bear at all.” Testing of this theory in 1963 found that 70 percent of the time, the urine of pregnant women did promote growth, while the urine of non-pregnant women and men did not. Scholars have identified this as perhaps the first test to detect a unique substance in the urine of pregnant women, and have speculated that elevated levels of estrogens in pregnant women’s urine may have been the key to its success.

And a more historical analyses of the early pregnancy tests and the society that used it.
Ancient Egyptian Society and Family Life
Douglas J. Brewer, Emily Teeter

In Egyptian households of all classes, children of both sexes were valued and wanted (there is no indication that female infanticide was practiced). In addition to fertility tests, tests for pregnancy and the determination of the gender of the child were devised. One test involved watering barley and emmer wheat with the urine of a hopeful mother-to-be. If the barley sprouted, the woman was pregnant with a male child; if the emmer wheat germinated, she was pregnant with a female child. If the urine had no effect, the woman was not pregnant. Though there actually may be some scientific basis for this test--a pregnant woman produces a variety of hormones, some of which can induce early flowering in particular plants--there is no known relationship between these plants and the determination of gender.
The birth of a child was a time of great joy as well as one of serious concern given the high rate of infant mortality and the stress of childbirth on the mother. Childbirth was viewed as a natural phenomenon and not an illness, so assistance in childbirth was usually carried out by a midwife
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701778/session2.html

I know. I've been skimming the thread. Maybe Ph33rdom is away on break right now, but I suspect he'll be a bit upset at this conclusion if he can find this thread when he comes back. :D

:)

Well, in my opinion, if your words can be used as weapons against you, you should have been more clear in your meanings, no?

:)

Well, in my opinion, if your words can be used as weapons against you, you should have been more clear in your meanings, no?
I was actually referring to both our conclusions. Heh. And I was right.

I said embodied, I never said anything about walking and feeding itself. You guys stopped reading at the DNA stuff because you've been arguing with other people that stopped at saying DNA, so the different types of DNA that everyone has is not relavent to my statement.

Looks like you are the one who stopped reading too early. I specifically addressed your theory of "unique DNA embodied," and--unless you have something new to offer--it has now been established that you are unable to even offer a suitable definition of personhood. Until/unless you are able to do so, anything more you have to say on the subject of abortion is irrelevant, since your anti-choice position is based upon an assertion you are thus far unable to support.

LOL,

You just did to him everything you accused him of doing to others :D

How so? I did not suggest that he has to adopt my ideas or that my ideas should be legislated upon him. In fact, Personal and I agree much more closely from a personal standpoint than you probably think.

Why does your empathy out-weigh Personal's empathy?

I am actually able to understand the position of those who disagree with me and give that position respect.

Anyone with any empathy at all would not claim that those who decide that abortion is the correct choice for themselves are simply trying to get away with murder or justify murder. The fact that he made that claim demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Why doesn't Personal have the same rights as everyone else to express opinion and encourage legislation accordingly?

He does. If he can provide a non-religion based reason for his views, he can push it all he wants. I have yet to see one.

My rationale is as objective as any other humans opinion.

Your rationale is based on religion, and thus is not something that can be legislated.

You just don't like my definition of what consitutes human life and because you don't understand it you claim that it is less objective than your own.

I have no problem with your definition of human life. In fact, from a personal standpoint, your definition is much closer to my own than any scientific viewpoint. That is, of course, irrelevant as the opinion itself is based in subjective religion and morals.

BTW, I'm not trying to legislate my personal morals on anyone, I'm only asking that the current laws be enforced.

Yes, you are. You are asking that an embryo be defined as a human being because you personally believe it to be so.

I have no desire to demonize anyone and I hold a very high level of concern for/empathy for people caught in the very difficult circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy, I just disagree with your solution for that problem as I can't justify murder for the sake of making people feel better about themselves or to make their lives easier or less complicated.

In your last post, you very deliberately demonized those who disagree with you. If you have no desire to do so, then don't do it.

Further, I do understand the positions of others, I just disagree with many of them.

Incorrect. Your last post made it very evident that you don't understand the positions of others - or that you intentionally misrepresent them, one.

Responsibility shared equally between the mother and the father. The mother gets all the rights and makes the important decicions, ie, Keep it, put it up for adoption, abort it, etc.

Looks like you are the one who stopped reading too early. I specifically addressed your theory of "unique DNA embodied," and--unless you have something new to offer--it has now been established that you are unable to even offer a suitable definition of personhood. Until/unless you are able to do so, anything more you have to say on the subject of abortion is irrelevant, since your anti-choice position is based upon an assertion you are thus far unable to support.

I said, in total, Unique Human DNA embodied (in an) an organism that is fully capable of maturing and/or reproducing offspring of it's own if left unmolested. But I tried to leave off the last part as unnecessary, I guess it wasn’t unnecessary after all. You guys would rather argue minutiae of triviality than actually explore the ramifications of your ‘choices’ on the big picture.

But yeah, after thinking about what you said, I’ve realized that minutiae of triviality is important. As soon as you can quote a sufficient legal definition of pornography maybe I’ll be able to come up with one for human life form with inalienable rights. It's extremely useful analyses of the situation to be able to overwhelm with triviality, or not.

I said, in total, But I tried to leave off the last part as unnecessary, I guess it wasn’t unnecessary after all. You guys would rather argue minutiae of triviality than actually explore the ramifications of your ‘choices’ on the big picture.

But yeah, after thinking about what you said, I’ve realized that minutiae of triviality is important. As soon as you can quote a sufficient legal definition of pornography maybe I’ll be able to come up with one for human life form with inalienable rights. It's extremely useful analyses of the situation to be able to overwhelm with triviality, or not.

"minutia[] of triviality"?

The question of who is and who is not a person is "minutia[] of triviality"?

The question of what entities do and do not have a right to life is the "minutia[] of triviality"?

The unsupported assumption that a zygote-embryo-fetus has a right to life is the backbone of your position, sparky.

To Bottle, Grave, and I, it is rather obvious that a zygote-embryo-early-term-fetus is not a person and does not have a right to life.

We were willing to dig into the "trivia" of your basis for denying the rather obvious.

But, for all your wailing and gnashing of teeth about abortion, apparently you can't be bothered to define who has a right to life and why.

Such "minutia[] of triviality" must get in the way of your real agenda -- punishing sex and subjugating women.

How so? I did not suggest that he has to adopt my ideas or that my ideas should be legislated upon him. In fact, Personal and I agree much more closely from a personal standpoint than you probably think.
But you do. You suggest that he has to adopt your point of view that he's not allowed to try and 'vote' in his point of view.


I am actually able to understand the position of those who disagree with me and give that position respect.

Anyone with any empathy at all would not claim that those who decide that abortion is the correct choice for themselves are simply trying to get away with murder or justify murder. The fact that he made that claim demonstrates a lack of empathy.

The voice in the wilderness calling for us to repent isn't likely to be cooing like a dove or whispering like a lover, no, it probably going to be damning us for our callous sins and calling us out to repent. And all you had to say was, "shut up you non-sympathetic judgmental screamer, we have the right to be sinners and continue in our callous ways, cause I’m not doing it myself it will all work out in the end…”

I’ll bet King Herod didn’t like John voice very much either.


He does. If he can provide a non-religion based reason for his views, he can push it all he wants. I have yet to see one. Where does the constitution say that he can't base his own views on religious principles? Where does it say that he can't vote with his religious principles to guide him? Since when is a person guided by religious morals not allowed to advocate their perspective on public policy? Perhaps your moral values says he shouldn't do that, but again, you're the one claiming to not be doing what he's doing. So how now can you say he can’t or even shouldn’t do it unless you yourself are equally unable to reprimand him?

To Bottle, Grave, and I, it is rather obvious that a zygote-embryo-early-term-fetus is not a person and does not have a right to life.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure that "it's completely obvious to me" is a valid and substantial description of the fetus one minute before it becomes a person and two minutes later... Thanks for clearing that up, it makes perfect sense now.

Maybe we can have that description put into the sex-ed books in Georgia that some of the other people around here have been complaining about. The "it's completely obvious to me" descriptions will fill in any voids of understanding that the students with that book might have had otherwise.

But you do. You suggest that he has to adopt your point of view that he's not allowed to try and 'vote' in his point of view.

Incorrect yet again. I never said that he has to adopt my point of view. In fact, to be truthful, his point of view is pretty much the same as my own. I simply stated that a law cannot be passed that is based entirely in subjective religion and morals. 1st Amendment and all that crazy stuff.

The voice in the wilderness calling for us to repent isn't likely to be cooing like a dove or whispering like a lover, no, it probably going to be damning us for our callous sins and calling us out to repent. And all you had to say was, "shut up you non-sympathetic judgmental screamer, we have the right to be sinners and continue in our callous ways, cause I’m not doing it myself it will all work out in the end…”

I’ll bet King Herod didn’t like John voice very much either.

Good to know you still aren't actually reading what I say. I guess it's easier for you if you get to argue with a strawman.

Where does the constitution say that he can't base his own views on religious principles?

It doesn't. His personal views are his own. If he thinks that every woman who gets an abortion is going to hell, fine.

Where does it say that he can't vote with his religious principles to guide him? Since when is a person guided by religious morals not allowed to advocate their perspective on public policy?

There is a difference between "guided by" and "based on". A law that is guided by religion is no problem, so long as it has an objective basis. A law that is based in religion is not, as it would violate the 1st amendment - at the very least.

So how now can you say he can’t or even shouldn’t do it unless you yourself are equally unable to reprimand him?

I can't reprimand someone for trying to shit on the Constitution? Hmmm.... Guess I should be quiet the next time someone tries to take away due process rights too....

Yes, I'm absolutely sure that "it's completely obvious to me" is a valid and substantial description of the fetus one minute before it becomes a person and two minutes later... Thanks for clearing that up, it makes perfect sense now.

(a) I didn't say that. Please properly attribute.

(b) No one is talking about 2 minutes before birth. Have fun with that strawman though.

I was actually referring to both our conclusions. Heh. And I was right.
Oh, agreed... I didn't mean YOUR words were being used against you... :)

Anyway, yes - it seems he/she was a little less than pleased, I gather.

I said embodied, I never said anything about walking and feeding itself. You guys stopped reading at the DNA stuff because you've been arguing with other people that stopped at saying DNA, so the different types of DNA that everyone has is not relavent to my statement.


Let's see what you actually said shall we?

"unique Human DNA embodied....You could add more, such as, an organism that is fully capable of maturing and/or reproducing offspring of it's own if left unmolested....

Well, we have already ascertained that you are using flawed premises, since, there IS no way to have 'unique' DNA 'embodied'. Every human body contains various DIFFERENT unique DNA combinations... not just ONE 'unique' DNA.

As such, we can see that purely "unique DNA embodied" is an impossible concept. Pretty poor start point for an argument.

But - secondly, you said "capable of maturing and/or reproducing offspring of it's own if left unmolested...".

Okay - let's examine that. You are implying this 'person' is a subsistence entity... it can support itself. Clearly, a foetus cannot survive 'unmolested', it REQUIRES the 'interference' of the uterus and body of the 'mother'.

So - left unmolested, the foetus cannot even self-sustain, let alone 'mature' or 'reproduce'.

In fact, the earliest point at which I can feasibly see that you MIGHT be able to claim independence, is once the entity can MOVE unaccompanied, and feed itself. Thus - a walking, feeding child.

Your definition, my friend. Your parameters.

You have made a definition for what counts as a person, and now you are objecting because your own argument is not supported by the logical conclusions of your definition.



Different topic: the pregnancy test, just cause you guys were discussing it, there is more info about that if Demi is really interested. I would have answered it specifically but I thought it was rhetorical.

I don’t know how valid it is as I’ve never tested it myself, but there is historical evidence that people had access to pregnancy tests. The oldest recorded written record that I’m aware of was from a pre-exodus medical book from ancient Egypt.


You may not have noticed this, but the Hebrews and the Egyptians have sometimes been considered as separate cultures...

The point remains that a modern re-testing of an ancient pregnancy test means nothing... if for no other reason than our current cereal crops are adaptations of earlier crops, and thus, might be producing results not matched by the ancient tests.

Also - of course, aside from not ALL civilisations using Egyptian technology, you are ignoring the practicalities... this technology would not have been available to everybody.... might not have been KNOWN to everybody... might not have appealed to everybody.

Certainly, some of the less wealthy females would have been likely to look askance at you, if you suggested they urinate over their small cereal reserves.

Point: Irrelevent.

"minutia[] of triviality"?

The question of who is and who is not a person is "minutia[] of triviality"?

The question of what entities do and do not have a right to life is the "minutia[] of triviality"?

The unsupported assumption that a zygote-embryo-fetus has a right to life is the backbone of your position, sparky.

To Bottle, Grave, and I, it is rather obvious that a zygote-embryo-early-term-fetus is not a person and does not have a right to life.

We were willing to dig into the "trivia" of your basis for denying the rather obvious.

But, for all your wailing and gnashing of teeth about abortion, apparently you can't be bothered to define who has a right to life and why.

Such "minutia[] of triviality" must get in the way of your real agenda -- punishing sex and subjugating women.

I get the feeling that we are the 'bad guys' here.... not because we have a particular opinion, but more because we can define it, and then defend it.

Even though we may, separately, have slightly different interpretations, we are ALSO expected, it seems, to assist in the creation of our opponents definition and defence... or, at least, not tear down it's obvious failings.

Where does the constitution say that he can't base his own views on religious principles? Where does it say that he can't vote with his religious principles to guide him? Since when is a person guided by religious morals not allowed to advocate their perspective on public policy? Perhaps your moral values says he shouldn't do that, but again, you're the one claiming to not be doing what he's doing. So how now can you say he can’t or even shouldn’t do it unless you yourself are equally unable to reprimand him?


The Constitution of the nation is supposed to be the mechanism of government BY the people, isn't it? It is, I believe, designed to make the government OF the people into something 'representative'?

So - when a person starts to make laws BASED on their SPECIFIC religious beliefs, they are attempting to make the process LESS representative of all, and more representative of THEM.

They are over-riding the democratic process for their personal religious motivation.


Yes, I'm absolutely sure that "it's completely obvious to me" is a valid and substantial description of the fetus one minute before it becomes a person and two minutes later... Thanks for clearing that up, it makes perfect sense now.

Maybe we can have that description put into the sex-ed books in Georgia that some of the other people around here have been complaining about. The "it's completely obvious to me" descriptions will fill in any voids of understanding that the students with that book might have had otherwise.

First "completely obvious" wasn't the SUM of the argument, just a description of it.

I, personally, have CLEARLY stated that I believe the earliest point at which a foetus can be truly considered HUMAN LIFE, is the 20th+ week... when the neural processes are functional.

I believe that, until it has at least the CAPACITY to think and remember, it is not valid as human LIFE... just as 'living tissue'.

Do not create a Strawman to fight, just because you cannot actually counter any of the ACTUAL arguments.

Oh, and regarding your sarcastic "Maybe we can have that description put into the sex-ed books in Georgia that some of the other people around here have been complaining about" commentary... how is that helpful?

You are being sarcastic (non-constructive) about an issue that SHOULD be a very real concern, since it is the CAUSE of many unwanted pregnancies.

YOUR attempt to trivialise - perhaps goes someway to explaining how such a situation has come to pass in the first place.

I said, in total, But I tried to leave off the last part as unnecessary, I guess it wasn’t unnecessary after all. You guys would rather argue minutiae of triviality than actually explore the ramifications of your ‘choices’ on the big picture.

But yeah, after thinking about what you said, I’ve realized that minutiae of triviality is important. As soon as you can quote a sufficient legal definition of pornography maybe I’ll be able to come up with one for human life form with inalienable rights. It's extremely useful analyses of the situation to be able to overwhelm with triviality, or not.
Triviality. Riiiiiight. Whether or not a set of twins is one person or two is trivial. Whether or not a human ovum or sperm is a human person is trivial.

Guess we all know how much you value human personhood.

As has been amply demonstrated by others on this page, you have utterly failed to provide a remotely sufficient definition of personhood. Consider yourself irrelevant in this discussion until you can do so :).

Triviality. Riiiiiight. Whether or not a set of twins is one person or two is trivial. Whether or not a human ovum or sperm is a human person is trivial.

Guess we all know how much you value human personhood.

As has been amply demonstrated by others on this page, you have utterly failed to provide a remotely sufficient definition of personhood. Consider yourself irrelevant in this discussion until you can do so :).

I'm still not sure about this... in a debate about abortion, and personal rights and responsibilities....

Ph33rdom thinks that the specific definition of what personhood IS, is 'trivial'?

I'm still not sure about this... in a debate about abortion, and personal rights and responsibilities....

Ph33rdom thinks that the specific definition of what personhood IS, is 'trivial'?
That's what he seems to be saying. Maybe he will come back and clarify. So let's make this really simple:

Ph33rdom, for the sake of clarity, answer the following with yes/no...

Do you believe the definition of human personhood is a trivial issue?

Do you believe you have a sufficient definition of human personhood? Are you certain enough in your definition that you feel qualified to judge when a human life attains personhood?

Are you prepared to articulate and defend your definition of human personhood in this forum? Would you prefer to continue constructing straw men with whom to joust?

Would you prefer to continue constructing straw men with whom to joust?

At least he gets to 'score points' on his straw opponents...

At least he gets to 'score points' on his straw opponents...
But you killjoys are even hampering his enjoyment of that! Such meanies...

What I find really funny is that I would be more than willing to argue on abortion, pregnancy rights and responsibilities, and the matter of reproductive choice without having personhood enter the debate. After all, my own views on abortion would be completely unchanged even if it were somehow proven that human personhood begins at conception. But this fellow insists on basing his views on claims he can't support, and we can't be allowing that sort of behavior around here!

But you killjoys are even hampering his enjoyment of that! Such meanies...


You're right.

I feel terrible.... "Bad Llama".


What I find really funny is that I would be more than willing to argue on abortion, pregnancy rights and responsibilities, and the matter of reproductive choice without having personhood enter the debate. After all, my own views on abortion would be completely unchanged even if it were somehow proven that human personhood begins at conception. But this fellow insists on basing his views on claims he can't support, and we can't be allowing that sort of behavior around here!

I think 'personhood' became a kind of last resort... after 'rights' and 'scriptural support' were so cruelly snatched away...

I don't mind debating anything with anyone... just so long as they 'bring something to the table'.

Still... at least Ph33rdom is NOT Terminalia, for example....

I think 'personhood' became a kind of last resort... after 'rights' and 'scriptural support' were so cruelly snatched away...

I don't mind debating anything with anyone... just so long as they 'bring something to the table'.

Still... at least Ph33rdom is NOT Terminalia, for example....
Wow, yeah, thank goodness for that...Termie will always have a special place in my heart, but I don't know if I have the energy to deal with him ever again.

Wow, yeah, thank goodness for that...Termie will always have a special place in my heart, but I don't know if I have the energy to deal with him ever again.

He served a purpose...

Every time I find myself hitting myself headfirst against brickwalls of debate... the joyous recollections of the Great Wall of Termie (that infamous Superman like immunity to logic or evidence), and the wonder of being threatened with a beating by someone half a globe away... just brings a little smile to my face.

:D

Extremely ironic that those claiming to be the most "objective" are they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable.

Extremely ironic that those claiming to be the most "objective" are they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable.
Who claimed to be objective?

Extremely ironic that those claiming to be the most "objective" are they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable.
Um, huh? Let me try to parse this, and you tell me if I am wrong:

I think you are trying to say that it's ironic that pro-choice people (who, in this discussion, have been claiming to be most objective) are telling anti-choice people their views are unacceptable, and that doing so constitutes an imposition comparable to the anti-choice efforts to legislate against abortion.

If that is incorrect, please ignore everything below this point.

If that is correct, then you are about the 10 billionth anti-choicer to construct your own personal straw man on this thread. Pro-choice individuals have stated, clearly, many times, within the last few pages, that anti-choice people are totally within their rights to disagree with abortion. Demi has specifically said that she herself doesn't believe abortion is the right choice for her. Virtually every pro-choice person has defended the anti-choicer's right to assert their disagreement with abortion, and I have yet to see a pro-choice person claiming they have the right to force anti-choice people to have abortions against their will.

Anti-choice individuals seek to make personal decisions for other humans. Pro-choice individuals seek to leave these personal decisions up to the individual, and to prevent the anti-choice groups from violating individual rights based on religious ideology and personal ego. If you think it is ironic that people calling themselves "pro-choice" support the right to choose, and that pro-choice people are vocally opposed to those who would take away the right to choose, then perhaps you should look up the word "irony" in your dictionary...I don't think it means what you think it means.

Extremely ironic that those claiming to be the most "objective" are they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable.

Who claimed to be objective?

Personally, I DO claim to be fairly objective... but I have yet to 'impose' my views on anybody.

Who claimed to be objective?

Personally, I DO claim to be fairly objective... but I have yet to 'impose' my views on anybody.
Lol we sound alike :p

And ironic guy notice he said FAIRLY ... complete objectivity is a bit beyond human capacity ... you can get close but never achieve

I don't think it means what you think it means.

So sayeth Inigo Montoya... ;)

So sayeth Inigo Montoya... ;)
Oh my goodness, you just got 14 coolness points...I didn't think anybody would catch that :).

Lol we sound alike :p

And ironic guy notice he said FAIRLY ... complete objectivity is a bit beyond human capacity ... you can get close but never achieve

And I notice Bottle has posted the same sentiments, also... but with ninjas on it... :)

Um, huh? Let me try to parse this, and you tell me if I am wrong:

I think you are trying to say that it's ironic that pro-choice people (who, in this discussion, have been claiming to be most objective) are telling anti-choice people their views are unacceptable, and that doing so constitutes an imposition comparable to the anti-choice efforts to legislate against abortion.

If that is incorrect, please ignore everything below this point.

If that is correct, then you are about the 10 billionth anti-choicer to construct your own personal straw man on this thread. Pro-choice individuals have stated, clearly, many times, within the last few pages, that anti-choice people are totally within their rights to disagree with abortion. Demi has specifically said that she herself doesn't believe abortion is the right choice for her. Virtually every pro-choice person has defended the anti-choicer's right to assert their disagreement with abortion, and I have yet to see a pro-choice person claiming they have the right to force anti-choice people to have abortions against their will.

Anti-choice individuals seek to make personal decisions for other humans. Pro-choice individuals seek to leave these personal decisions up to the individual, and to prevent the anti-choice groups from violating individual rights based on religious ideology and personal ego. If you think it is ironic that people calling themselves "pro-choice" support the right to choose, and that pro-choice people are vocally opposed to those who would take away the right to choose, then perhaps you should look up the word "irony" in your dictionary...I don't think it means what you think it means.

Well done (know what the poster was trying to do) though they might want to examine their use of “objective” as we are not claiming to be truly objective in the situation we are claming the most personal freedom for different beliefs

There is a difference

So sayeth Inigo Montoya... ;)
You killed my father prepare to DIE

“you seem like a decent fellow … I hate to die”

Oh my goodness, you just got 14 coolness points...I didn't think anybody would catch that :).

I may be an evil, gothic bastard... but I know a good movie when I see it. :D

Well done (know what the poster was trying to do) though they might want to examine their use of “objective” as we are not claiming to be truly objective in the situation we are claming the most personal freedom for different beliefs

There is a difference

I think the use of the word objective is my fault. I stated that if anti-choice people had an objective (ie. non-religion or subjective moral-based) reason to oppose abortion, they might be justified in trying to make it illegal. Otherwise, all they have is their personal decision, which they should live by and perhaps try and convince others of - but not legislate.

You killed my father prepare to DIE

“you seem like a decent fellow … I hate to die”

"We'll never survive".... "Nonsense, you're only saying that because noone ever has...."

A truly great movie. :)

I think the use of the word objective is my fault. I stated that if anti-choice people had an objective (ie. non-religion or subjective moral-based) reason to oppose abortion, they might be justified in trying to make it illegal. Otherwise, all they have is their personal decision, which they should live by and perhaps try and convince others of - but not legislate.
Ahhh though you would be correct in claiming such that an objective source of data was in use rather then a subjective sort.

"We'll never survive".... "Nonsense, you're only saying that because noone ever has...."

A truly great movie. :)
I was raised on that move :) that was like my childhood lol
I love the quick sand scene :)

"No no he said TO BLAVE which means to bluf!"
"LIAR ... LIAR "

"Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us heah today."

"Inconceivable!"

"Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us heah today."

"Inconceivable!"

"That bwessed awwangement, that dweam within a dweam...."

I think the use of the word objective is my fault. I stated that if anti-choice people had an objective (ie. non-religion or subjective moral-based) reason to oppose abortion, they might be justified in trying to make it illegal. Otherwise, all they have is their personal decision, which they should live by and perhaps try and convince others of - but not legislate.

I don't see how the other poster (boy, do I feel bad... I've forgotten who it was, already) got there from here, though...

"Extremely ironic that those claiming to be the most "objective" are they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable."

As far as I can see, you have said that it doesn't work FOR YOU, but you wouldn't try to legislate it... which sounds 'objective' to me... and like you are precisely NOT trying to 'impose' your view....

But, hey... what do I know, eh?

Um, huh? Let me try to parse this, and you tell me if I am wrong:

I think you are trying to say that it's ironic that pro-choice people (who, in this discussion, have been claiming to be most objective) are telling anti-choice people their views are unacceptable, and that doing so constitutes an imposition comparable to the anti-choice efforts to legislate against abortion.



Wrong. :rolleyes: I am Pro-Choice which is irrelevant being that my comment was not based upon specific issues but on posts made throughout the thread. I am one in the pursuit of knowledge and have found being objective to be a useful tool in learning. My statement about the Irony of it all was made to allow me to express that being objective includes looking at the facts someone else’s opinion is based on before immediately assuming one's own position is the correct one. Being an intellectual, I’m sure you can look back and find at least one post that will allow you to see what I am referring to.

Just for the record... The "other side" is not called "anti-choice" as you stated repeatedly, but "Pro-Life." If you do not already, It would be good for you to understand their views and not just what their radicals rant.

Just for the record... The "other side" is not called "anti-choice" as you stated repeatedly, but "Pro-Life." If you do not already, It would be good for you to understand their views and not just what their radicals rant.
The other side may refer to themselves as "pro-life," but that is not an accurate name based on their views. They oppose the right to choose abortion, thus they are anti-choice; they do not support life any more or less than the pro-choice lobby, so they are no more "pro-life" than the pro-choice side. Just because they want to be called "pro-life" doesn't mean that name is particularly valid, and just because I refer to them as "anti-choice" doesn't mean I have failed to examine or understand their viewpoint.

Wrong. :rolleyes: I am Pro-Choice which is irrelevant being that my comment was not based upon specific issues but on posts made throughout the thread. I am one in the pursuit of knowledge and have found being objective to be a useful tool in learning. My statement about the Irony of it all was made to allow me to express that being objective includes looking at the facts someone else’s opinion is based on before immediately assuming one's own position is the correct one. Being an intellectual, I’m sure you can look back and find at least one post that will allow you to see what I am referring to.

Just for the record... The "other side" is not called "anti-choice" as you stated repeatedly, but "Pro-Life." If you do not already, It would be good for you to understand their views and not just what their radicals rant.

Just for the record, "Pro-Life" implies a positive attitude towards life... i.e. that actions of the Pro-Life lobby would, logically, be about preservation of life, no?

And yet - "Pro-Life" lobbies do not espouse opposition to death penalties, or war... do not concern themselves with 'humanitarian' courses EXCEPT the preservation of womb-based foetuses, against the express wishes of those to whom the wombs belong.

So - while they only oppose abortion, it is only fair to refer to them by WHAT THEY DO, rather than by the 'brand name' moniker they have discovered, which is mildly more saleable to the public...

So, I don't call them "Pro-Life" (which makes them sound like they are carrying out a positive action), I call them "Anti-Abortion"... because that is what their 'platform' rests on.


But - regarding your 'irony'... would you care to show evidence of the 'objective' imposing their beliefs on others?

The other side may refer to themselves as "pro-life," but that is not an accurate name based on their views. They oppose the right to choose abortion, thus they are anti-choice; they do not support life any more or less than the pro-choice lobby, so they are no more "pro-life" than the pro-choice side. Just because they want to be called "pro-life" doesn't mean that name is particularly valid, and just because I refer to them as "anti-choice" doesn't mean I have failed to examine or understand their viewpoint.

They could just as easy refer to us as "anti-life." Think about that and how inaccurate of a statement it is. Just as "anti-choice" is inaccurate of their beliefs. I’m having doubts that you clearly see what it is someone "Pro-Life" stands for and believes.

But - regarding your 'irony'... would you care to show evidence of the 'objective' imposing their beliefs on others?

I did not state they imposed their beliefs on others but that they imposed other's beliefs were unacceptable.

...they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable.

They could just as easy refer to us as "anti-life." Think about that and how inaccurate of a statement it is.

As I already stated, calling pro-choice individuals "anti-life" would be as inaccurate as calling anti-choice individuals "anti-life." Pro-choice individuals are as "pro-life" as anti-choice individuals. The use of "pro-life" or "anti-life" is pointless, since both labels are completely inaccurate. Pro-choice individuals don't support abortion, they support the right to choose...anti-choice individuals don't support "life" (since they do not advocate all the things that would maximize human reproduction and "life"), they support removing the right to choose abortion. "Pro-life" or "anti-life" are meaningless terms.


Just as "anti-choice" is inaccurate of their beliefs. I’m having doubts that you clearly see what it is someone "Pro-Life" stands for and believes.
What is it that you have trouble understanding? "Pro-life" individuals believe in removing personal choice in the field of human reproduction; they believe humans should not have the choice to legally have an abortion. They are opposed to choice. They are anti-choice on the subject of abortion. They are not "pro-life" because they espouse many "anti-life" views, but they are anti-choice because they oppose the right to choose.

Maybe somebody else can step in an clarify this...I feel like I must not be making myself clear. This seems like a very simple concept to me, and I don't understand why Sanctus is having trouble with it, so I must be garbling things somehow.

I did not state they imposed their beliefs on others but that they imposed other's beliefs were unacceptable.

Then I believe you must be misunderstanding the word "imposing"...

You said: "they that impose on others that their veiws are unacceptable".

Well, how does one 'impose on others that their views are unacceptable'?

In order to 'impose' such a belief... one would... well, have to 'impose the belief'.

Regardless of which, this was evasion. If you HAVE a valid point, shouldn't you be citing your evidence, rather than quibbling over semantics?

What is it that you have trouble understanding? "Pro-life" individuals believe in removing personal choice in the field of human reproduction; they believe humans should not have the choice to legally have an abortion. They are opposed to choice. They are anti-choice on the subject of abortion. They are not "pro-life" because they espouse many "anti-life" views, but they are anti-choice because they oppose the right to choose.


Bottle, I completely understand what it is you are saying. That is why I feel you do not clearly understand the "pro-life" view.

We are talking about abortion here. The issue is not the death penalty war or anything else. Remember that.

Pro-life people believe in the reverence of life. They believe that a man and woman create "life" at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To end that life would be wrong. They stand to protect that life just as much as we might want to protect the life of a loved one sentenced wrongly to the death penalty. You could say they are the defense attorney for the fetus that is condemned to die (the abortion). I think the biggest disagreement is that we do not all agree on what "life" is. Some say it’s when the baby is born. Others say at the beginning. Their belief is to protect life. Yes it affects our right to choose whether we want to have a baby or not, but that is not their main focus. Just as we are not allowed to choose to kill people around us, the pro-life people believe we should not be able to choose to kill "babies" or "embryos" or "fetuses."

Bottle, I completely understand what it is you are saying. That is why I feel you do not clearly understand the "pro-life" view.

We are talking about abortion here. The issue is not the death penalty war or anything else. Remember that.

Pro-life people believe in the reverence of life. They believe that a man and woman create "life" at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To end that life would be wrong. They stand to protect that life just as much as we might want to protect the life of a loved one sentenced wrongly to the death penalty. You could say they are the defense attorney for the fetus that is condemned to die (the abortion). I think the biggest disagreement is that we do not all agree on what "life" is. Some say it’s when the baby is born. Others say at the beginning. Their belief is to protect life. Yes it affects our right to choose whether we want to have a baby or not, but that is not their main focus. Just as we are not allowed to choose to kill people around us, the pro-life people believe we should not be able to choose to kill "babies" or "embryos" or "fetuses."

On the contrary, friend... the whole issue of the NAME centres around the reality of whether "Pro-Life" people are, in fact, Pro-Life.

We understand that the Pro-Life lobby claims to be protecting the 'life' of the foetus... but their supposed reverence for life ONLY stretches as far as the cervix... and therein lies the rub.

Since the 'official' task of the Pro-Life lobby is SOLELY about abortion, 'pro-life' is a MISNOMER.


Add to this - there is no consensus about whether a conceptus even IS a 'life', at the point at which abortion usually takes place. Thus - Pro-Life may be a misnomer for a second reason.


Lastly - I am 'Pro-Life' - I am firmly in favour of humans not being dead. I am also Pro-Choice, in that I think the pregnant woman has rights to govern her OWN uterus.

This is the problem... 'Pro-Life', if it were genuine, does not ONLY extend to the Anti-Abortion crowd. Most (I would imagine) Pro-Choice proponents are ALSO very 'pro-life'.

They could just as easy refer to us as "anti-life."
Think about that and how inaccurate of a statement it is.

They often do. They also call us the "death lobby" and other inaccurate labels.

We are pro-choice because we support the right of individual women to choose. Being pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion and it is certainly not anti-life.

So you are correct about how inaccurate that statement is.

Just as "anti-choice" is inaccurate of their beliefs. I’m having doubts that you clearly see what it is someone "Pro-Life" stands for and believes.

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions about those who have likely studied the issue -- both sides of the issue -- for far longer and much more thoroughly than you have.

I am well familiar with the "pro-life" viewpoint -- both as often represented here and in its more intelligent forms. Understanding it does not require that I either agree with it or respect it.

Those whose primary objective is depriving women of the right to choose are accurately labeled "anti-choice." Their position will cost, rather than save lives. They rarely advocate for measures that would prevent abortion such as increased and improved sex education, family planning, contraception, health care, etc. "Pro-life" is generally a misnomer.

"Anti-choice" is an accurate label for those who wish take away a woman's choice. Correct?

I assumed wrong that people here could get over their own agendas and look at all the facts on both sides. Is this forum here just so we can all say the same things and all state the same opinions against those who stray from our path? I thought maybe we could discuss issues from all levels objectively. I guess that knowledge made my time on this thread "worthwhile"

Bottle, I completely understand what it is you are saying. That is why I feel you do not clearly understand the "pro-life" view.

We are talking about abortion here. The issue is not the death penalty war or anything else. Remember that.

Pro-life people believe in the reverence of life. They believe that a man and woman create "life" at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To end that life would be wrong. They stand to protect that life just as much as we might want to protect the life of a loved one sentenced wrongly to the death penalty. You could say they are the defense attorney for the fetus that is condemned to die (the abortion). I think the biggest disagreement is that we do not all agree on what "life" is. Some say it’s when the baby is born. Others say at the beginning. Their belief is to protect life. Yes it affects our right to choose whether we want to have a baby or not, but that is not their main focus. Just as we are not allowed to choose to kill people around us, the pro-life people believe we should not be able to choose to kill "babies" or "embryos" or "fetuses."

Here you have rather clearly demonstrated your ignorance on this issue.

1. The biggest disagreement is some respect women. We recognize they have rights -- such as to self-ownership, bodily integrity, reproductive choice. We also respect the ability of individual women to act as moral agents and make responsible choices.

2. The question of whether an unborn child has a right to life is neither the beginning nor the end of the question. Per #1, some of us recognize that abortion should be legal and is a moral choice, even if you assume that a zygote-embryo-fetus is a person. An unborn child's right to life cannot supercede a woman's right to control her own body.

3. "[W]hat 'life' is" is not the proper question -- as anyone who has serious thought about the issue knows. We do not deny that the unborn child is alive. Zygotes are alive. So are spinach, chickens, bacteria, fingernails, etc. "Life" is not the relevant question. Nor is "human life." The relevant quesiton is personhood. What entities are or are not persons -- i.e., have rights such as a right to life -- and why or why not.

4. You characterize the debate re personhood as one between those who say it begins at conception and those that say it begins at birth. Although there are some that take those positions, relatively few who are pro-choice afford no consideration or rights to a child until it is born. In fact, most who are pro-choice support the laws of the United States making abortion illegal in the third trimester unless it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

For someone who claims to be pro-choice, you have demonstrated a thorough misunderstanding of the issue of abortion, particularly the pro-choice position.

Rather than lecture Bottle, you should do some homework yourself.

By the way, ever heard the expression "don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs"? You should learn it.

I assumed wrong that people here could get over their own agendas and look at all the facts on both sides. Is this forum here just so we can all say the same things and all state the same opinions against those who stray from our path? I thought maybe we could discuss issues from all levels objectively. I guess that knowledge made my time on this thread "worthwhile"

Deary, have you paid attention at all to this thread? To the scores of threads like it that appear constantly?

Objective facts have been presented and dismissed as inconvenient.

You patronizingly assume that some of us have never seriously studied the issue. We have. We are more than willing to discuss it. We are more than willing to entertain factual evidence and reasoned argument. We may or may not disagree. We will definitely criticize errors in logic or fact.

You have yet to say anything of substance. Instead, you have merely assumed we are ignorant.

Feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom. Say something worthwhile.

I assumed wrong that people here could get over their own agendas and look at all the facts on both sides. Is this forum here just so we can all say the same things and all state the same opinions against those who stray from our path? I thought maybe we could discuss issues from all levels objectively. I guess that knowledge made my time on this thread "worthwhile"

What exactly is your point?

You are debating (one assumes) the fact that there are two sides to the debate, and that (you perceive) one side seems to be blind to the logic of the other side.

Perhaps it is your use of language that is getting in your way? Your contentions ARE hard to fathom, if they are STILL somehow not what I am perceiving them to be.

You seem to be arguing that Pro-life people favour preservation of the 'life' of the foetus. The Pro-choice faction agrees with you... but points out that 'life' is not the sole preserve of the 'pro-life' group... and that, in fact, pro-'life' might not even be technically accurate.

Other than that, there are definitely contentious issues about what 'pro-life' even MEANS... since it does not apply universally... and, in fact, ONLY applies to the issue of choice, as it relates to abortion.
Thus, Anti-Choice, or Anti-Abortion would ACTUALLY be more honest names.

Bottle, I completely understand what it is you are saying. That is why I feel you do not clearly understand the "pro-life" view.

We are talking about abortion here. The issue is not the death penalty war or anything else. Remember that.
I am completely aware of that, thanks.

Pro-life people believe in the reverence of life. They believe that a man and woman create "life" at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To end that life would be wrong.
Yet they fail to demonstrate why the fertilization of an egg by a sperm should be the starting point for "life." A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. They are human life. Why is the life of an individual sperm or egg not considered as important as the life of a fertilized egg? What about the "pro-life" people who assert that "life" begins when the fertilized egg implants?

They stand to protect that life just as much as we might want to protect the life of a loved one sentenced wrongly to the death penalty. You could say they are the defense attorney for the fetus that is condemned to die (the abortion).

You could also call them the prosecuting attourney seeking to remove human rights from a living being based on the personal opinions of other human beings. Why bother with such complications, though?


I think the biggest disagreement is that we do not all agree on what "life" is. Some say it’s when the baby is born. Others say at the beginning. Their belief is to protect life.

And I say it's called "The Human Life Cycle" for a reason: at no point does non-living tissue suddenly become living tissue. A human person is alive. Their gametes are alive. A human egg fertilized by a sperm is alive. A human zygote is alive. A human embryo is alive. A human fetus is alive. A neonate is alive. Life doesn't "begin" at any point, because all is alive. "Pro-life" individuals concern themselves only with a particular and narrow class of "life," and do not extend their concern to a large proportion of the human life that exists.


Yes it affects our right to choose whether we want to have a baby or not, but that is not their main focus.

Wait, so the prohibition of abortion isn't the main focus of the "pro-life" movement? You had better tell them to start changing their mission statements and websites, in that case...


Just as we are not allowed to choose to kill people around us, the pro-life people believe we should not be able to choose to kill "babies" or "embryos" or "fetuses."
The anti-choice people feel that their personal definition of human personhood should be forced upon all other people, and provide no sufficient reason why their version should be paramount. Some people assert that animals are people too, and we shouldn't have the right to kill animals. Still other people feel that even plants are living things that we do not have the right to kill, and they eat only the fruits which fall naturally from plants and the products that are naturally excreted from other life. We tell these people that they have the right to make that decision for themselves, but that other individuals reserve the right to believe that a cat is not a person and a tree does not have conscious feelings.

Anti-choice individuals are 100% within their rights to believe a fetus deserves to be recognized as a human person. However, if they wish to impose that standard upon other people they will have to provide something more than their say-so.

Only because you embrace a total relativism and subjectivity. Which makes all knowledge and opinions about everything purely subjective.

Such an extreme view makes all discourse pointless.



You have yet to provide a defensible definition of personhood.

What entities are and are not entitled to a right to life? Why and why not?



So, all human ideas are subjective and relative.

That would include any ideas of God.

I love it when Christians turn to relativism when they can't defend their views logically.



Bullshit. You've made clear you disagree with the law in the United States re abortion. You would change it to force women to conform to your view.



You claim sympathy and compassion and yet belittle pregnant women in the same breath.

Over half of all women in the US have an abortion by the time they are 45.

Over 60% already have a child when they have an abortion.

You trivialize the moral judgment of over half the female population and call it "compassion."

I haven't trivialized anything, nor have I belittled anyone. I have the utmost compassion both for those who have committed an abortion and those who have not, that has no berring on whether or not abortion is murder.

I have not asked for any change in any laws. Had it not been for a very poor interpration of the law in Roe v. Wade, we wouldn't even be discussing the legality of the situation, though the moral issue would still be debateable.

As for the issue of subjective verses objective reality, I believe that objective reality exists. The problem is, as finite, fallible, and biased human beings, none of us could ever honestly claim to have pure objectivity. Your emotional response to my post clearly shows yours, my religious beliefs clearly show mine. As for my view being "extreme" it is a commonly held philosophical belief by many athiests, christians and others alike. Not everyone agrees, but it isn't like this is a new idea.

Well, you and I will quibble over the word child... since I don't think you can really accurately describe a three week conceptus as a 'child' in all rationality.

I am most inclined to suggest a starting point of 'life', if you will, at about the twentieth week... since it is in the 20th-22nd week period that the neural network of the brain is effectively 'operational', and I prefer to err close to the START of that period, than towards the END.

Since most abortions (certainly elective ones) will occur FAR before that point, I don't see any issues of the 'rights' of the foetus... since non-living entities do not get rights.

My car has no rights of it's own, my computer has no rights of it's own, my dinner has no rights of it's own.

It is, perhaps, an unpleasant way to state it, but, UNTIL that foetus has a 'brain' (a functional brain unit, I'm not asking for higher cognitive skills), it is just 'meat', just tissue. Thus - it has the same 'rights' as any other unwanted tissue in the body... that is, none.

I disagree with your 'horny people' analogy. A huge number of abortions are unwanted second (or later) children within the confines of a sanctioned relationship, between adults who were careful.

Second to that, as a resident of the more backwater part of Georgia - I have been witness to the fact that this deliberately fostered aversion to discussing sex, especially to talk of sex-safety, is FORCING unwanted pregnancies on teenage girls. Often they have been raised being TOLD that the woman must submit to the man... often they have unprotected sex because they know no better... often they get pregnant without even KNOWING HOW the pregnancy occured.

This is a problem I have seen with my own eyes - a deliberate fostering of ignorance, followed by blaming the pregnant girl for her condition.

Did you know that pregnancy used to be sufficient legal grounds to overturn a rape allegation?

The logic went:

Pregnancy occurs when the woman orgasms.
Rape is a non-consensual sex act.
If the woman conceives, she MUST have orgasmed.
If the woman orgasmed, she MUST have enjoyed it.
If the woman enjoyed it, it MUST have been consensual.

Thus, a pregnant woman cannot have been raped.

I think we are veering dangerously close to that kind of thinking again, in some areas.

Come on G_n_I, I thought we were beyond that kind of discourse. You know very well, that I would denounce any rape, whether or not it involved a pregnancy. You also know that I would also denounce intentionally leaving young women uneducated on how pregnancy occurs.

The issue of unwanted pregnancies happening as a second child to people trying not to get pregnant is not relavent from my perspective, though I recognized that it is an issue for some... For me, if you chose to have a sexual relationship, you chose to possibly have a child, to abort it, is no different than to wait until it is born and then kill it. It is exactly the same thing from my perspective and it is my opinion that people who chose a different perspect chose to do so because they value other issues higher than human life, which people are entitled to do, but if the U.S. Gov. is going to do that, they need to add a caviate to murder laws IMO.

Further, your definition of when Human life begins (brain activity), is IMO, the second most viable definition. Viability is a nonsensicle definition as it is simply a subset of technology. I prefer conception for a combination of moral and scientific reasons. Most science suggests that life begins at conception, however it doesn't nor can it make the value judgment about whether or not it constitutes a human being or simply meat as you describe it. The law, unfortunately, doesn't define what a human being is either.

It had been, prior to Roe v. Wade, de facto definition that a conceived child was a human being. Roe v. Wade made it painfully clear that a de facto definition on this subject is no longer adequate. The problem is that there are a host of view, ranging from mine, that a conceived child is a human being protected by the rights of the Constitution, where as the other extreme suggests that until a child is born it does not possess the rights guarenteed by the Constitution and there are many positions in between.

My value judgment on this subject is no more or less acceptable than anyone else's. It is a value judgment and not a scientific one. There is no way an "objective" conclusion can be made on this subject, it will always be values based.

Ph33rdom, for the sake of clarity, answer the following with yes/no...

Do you believe the definition of human personhood is a trivial issue?


-I do not believe that the definition of human personhood is trivial. I believe that your definition of when a human has rights and when it does not, is trivial. To say from one minute before the twentieth week (if that’s what you three straw stooges have decided is the consensus between you for the granting of citizenship into the human race is going to be) and two minutes after that moment. I say that your definition is too trivial to be real. That you might as well be proposing the idea that trumpets sound and angels sing the moment the first forming brain’s synapses trigger off.

The growing physical entity is completely determined long before the day you guys assign to it, it is only unfinished but currently assembling itself, not undetermined. Someday, medical technology will be good enough to tell a woman taking her pregnancy test one day after missing her period that not only is she pregnant or not, but if she is, what sex it is, how tall it’s going to be when it grow up, what hair color and eye color it’s going to have, what medical conditions it’s likely to have, large boned or skinny etc., etc., etc… provided it is left unmolested.

Just because we can’t do that yet doesn’t mean the truth of what I said isn’t already there.

The Constitution of the nation is supposed to be the mechanism of government BY the people, isn't it? It is, I believe, designed to make the government OF the people into something 'representative'?

So - when a person starts to make laws BASED on their SPECIFIC religious beliefs, they are attempting to make the process LESS representative of all, and more representative of THEM.

They are over-riding the democratic process for their personal religious motivation.

-Yes, it is. And if someday 70% of the nation believes one way over the other, this question about abortion will be finished for generations. Because the government will be directly BY the people and FOR the people and Representative OF the people when it dictates which ever way the majority believes and writes an amendment to the constitution to solve the problem once and for all. However, it’s 50-50 right now and both sides are recruiting and passionately pleading their case. Why are you offended by this? Are you afraid your side is going to lose? If not, you should be. Medical technology will advance enough that someday Abortions will never be required again when the incubator for premature babies are so good that we can change their names to artificial womb.

And even if it never becomes illegal, Doctors will progressively refuse to perform abortions. In the not too distant future they will know full well that while they are doing them that they could have saved these same babies with the new incubator technologies get good enough to nurture premature babies farther and farther back. It might be 36 weeks now, then 33 weeks next year, then 30 the year after that. Maybe in a couple of decades the fetus will be savable at 20 weeks, we’ll see and I won’t be surprised one bit.

To deny this reality now is to live with our eyes closed and our minds shut. Pretending that a fetus viability is a valid point that choosing when and when not to allow an abortion.


First "completely obvious" wasn't the SUM of the argument, just a description of it.

I, personally, have CLEARLY stated that I believe the earliest point at which a foetus can be truly considered HUMAN LIFE, is the 20th+ week... when the neural processes are functional.

I believe that, until it has at least the CAPACITY to think and remember, it is not valid as human LIFE... just as 'living tissue'.


According to you the fetus is not alive? No, that’s not what you said. Because plants are alive without functioning minds and a fetus is at least as much as a plant even in your terminology. People accept that expression of brain dead for euthanasia arguments, but that is because there is no hope of the condition improving. With a fetus that argument doesn’t hold water because there is every reason in the world to think that there IS hope for the condition to improve. Just wait a few months, the condition will improve astronomically. Thus, euthanizing a fetus before the 20 week because it’s brain dead makes about what, zero sense? Just like your argument.


The biggest disagreement is some respect women. We recognize they have rights -- such as to self-ownership, bodily integrity, reproductive choice. We also respect the ability of individual women to act as moral agents and make responsible choices.

What arrogant rubbish. As if nobody but the people that agree with you could possibly have respect and concern for women and other people.

The way you three pat each other on the back for repeating your favorite ‘key-words’ it reminds me of the Dufflepads from the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. If one of you find any reason to say one of them they other two chirp around like dufflepads agreeing with the astounding wisdom of it. It’s quite remarkable really.

(It’ll be interesting to see which one uses the word “strawman” first, again)

I haven't trivialized anything, nor have I belittled anyone. I have the utmost compassion both for those who have committed an abortion and those who have not, that has no berring on whether or not abortion is murder.


I see current interpretation of the law to be little more than a contrived means of making murder legal to remove personal responsibility from the actions of horny people who refuse to exersize self-control.

Hmmmm....

Come on G_n_I, I thought we were beyond that kind of discourse. You know very well, that I would denounce any rape, whether or not it involved a pregnancy. You also know that I would also denounce intentionally leaving young women uneducated on how pregnancy occurs.

The issue of unwanted pregnancies happening as a second child to people trying not to get pregnant is not relavent from my perspective, though I recognized that it is an issue for some... For me, if you chose to have a sexual relationship, you chose to possibly have a child, to abort it, is no different than to wait until it is born and then kill it. It is exactly the same thing from my perspective and it is my opinion that people who chose a different perspect chose to do so because they value other issues higher than human life, which people are entitled to do, but if the U.S. Gov. is going to do that, they need to add a caviate to murder laws IMO.

Further, your definition of when Human life begins (brain activity), is IMO, the second most viable definition. Viability is a nonsensicle definition as it is simply a subset of technology. I prefer conception for a combination of moral and scientific reasons. Most science suggests that life begins at conception, however it doesn't nor can it make the value judgment about whether or not it constitutes a human being or simply meat as you describe it. The law, unfortunately, doesn't define what a human being is either.

It had been, prior to Roe v. Wade, de facto definition that a conceived child was a human being. Roe v. Wade made it painfully clear that a de facto definition on this subject is no longer adequate. The problem is that there are a host of view, ranging from mine, that a conceived child is a human being protected by the rights of the Constitution, where as the other extreme suggests that until a child is born it does not possess the rights guarenteed by the Constitution and there are many positions in between.

My value judgment on this subject is no more or less acceptable than anyone else's. It is a value judgment and not a scientific one. There is no way an "objective" conclusion can be made on this subject, it will always be values based.

Correct … but unless there is some sort of objective proof of a dividing line between “human being and non human being) and where it stands I don’t think a value judgment one way or another has the weight to overrule the already established rights of the mother.
I may not like abortion but without something concrete (or more so) to base the start of life on I don’t see why the mothers rights should be over turned

It had been, prior to Roe v. Wade, de facto definition that a conceived child was a human being.

Only for a very short period of time. Up until abortions became medically safe, the abortion was not illegal. In fact, as has been pointed out to you more than once, society still went by the English common law defintion, which placed the beginning of personhood at the quickening. Once abortion became a medically safe procedure, rather than a more dangerous procedure generally carried out by midwives, laws were passed making it illegal. This lasted for a very short while before Roe v. Wade.

I would say that in relation to the pregnancy, the woman has most say as she has all the biological work to do, and afterwards when (if) the child is born it is 50/50.

People are talking about strawman so much these days im beginning to think its not just a logical fallacy :)

Hmmmm....

How exactly is that belittling anyone. I may be questioning their moral judgment and willingness to take responsibility for their actions, but I haven't called anyone names or been intentionally derrogatory to anyone. I believe the behavior is wrong and that doesn't mean I belittled anyone.

Correct … but unless there is some sort of objective proof of a dividing line between “human being and non human being) and where it stands I don’t think a value judgment one way or another has the weight to overrule the already established rights of the mother.
I may not like abortion but without something concrete (or more so) to base the start of life on I don’t see why the mothers rights should be over turned


The problem is 50 years ago, that decision was established in a different direction, so to claim this is a closed issue because of one Supreme Court ruling that is to many Americans a misapplication of existing law that never spoke to the issue to begin with, perhaps writing clear law that pertains to this matter would be more appropriate in terms of establishing legal rights.

How exactly is that belittling anyone. I may be questioning their moral judgment and willingness to take responsibility for their actions, but I haven't called anyone names or been intentionally derrogatory to anyone. I believe the behavior is wrong and that doesn't mean I belittled anyone.
Belittling is not just name calling it is also tone not all pregnancy is by the choice of “horny people that refuse to exercise self-control” you are reducing it as to make it seem contemptible
(and it may or may not be that is a value judgment) but either way it has a tendency in context to seem belittling

Only for a very short period of time. Up until abortions became medically safe, the abortion was not illegal. In fact, as has been pointed out to you more than once, society still went by the English common law defintion, which placed the beginning of personhood at the quickening. Once abortion became a medically safe procedure, rather than a more dangerous procedure generally carried out by midwives, laws were passed making it illegal. This lasted for a very short while before Roe v. Wade.

Medically safe for whom? Certainly not the child.

-I do not believe that the definition of human personhood is trivial. I believe that your definition of when a human has rights and when it does not, is trivial.

One is wholly dependent upon the other. Thus, if one is trivial, then both are.

To say from one minute before the twentieth week (if that’s what you three straw stooges have decided is the consensus between you for the granting of citizenship into the human race is going to be) and two minutes after that moment. I say that your definition is too trivial to be real. That you might as well be proposing the idea that trumpets sound and angels sing the moment the first forming brain’s synapses trigger off.

Why is somone alive 2 minutes before brain-death and dead just after? Are there trumpets sounding and angels singing?

Someday, medical technology will be good enough to tell a woman taking her pregnancy test one day after missing her period that not only is she pregnant or not, but if she is, what sex it is, how tall it’s going to be when it grow up, what hair color and eye color it’s going to have, what medical conditions it’s likely to have, large boned or skinny etc., etc., etc… provided it is left unmolested.

Wow, you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of biology. Just how will these things be immediately determined? How tall it will be? Yes, because that is completely a product of genetics. Both hair color and eye color can be epigenetic traits. Only genetic medical conditions could be determined from any such test. Being skinny would be a product of nutrition (as would height, by the way). You really are quite silly.

Just because we can’t do that yet doesn’t mean the truth of what I said isn’t already there.

Yes, and one day we'll be able to jump to the moon on little rocket blasters on our feet. Actually, that's more believable than what you just said.

-Yes, it is. And if someday 70% of the nation believes one way over the other, this question about abortion will be finished for generations.

Just like the question of slavery was finished for generations because so many people thought it was ok?

Medical technology will advance enough that someday Abortions will never be required again when the incubator for premature babies are so good that we can change their names to artificial womb.

....which will be fine - as it will still allow for the choice of the woman to not continue a pregnancy. She will still have the option of having the embryo/fetus removed.

(It’ll be interesting to see which one uses the word “strawman” first, again)

If you don't like the word, then please - debate with what is said instead of what you want to hear.

How exactly is that belittling anyone. I may be questioning their moral judgment and willingness to take responsibility for their actions, but I haven't called anyone names or been intentionally derrogatory to anyone. I believe the behavior is wrong and that doesn't mean I belittled anyone.

"Horny people who refuse to exercise self-control"

I see quite a bit of name-calling and wild assumptions there.