NationStates Jolt Archive

Medically safe for whom? Certainly not the child.

And yet you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that, up until the laws banning abortion were passed, an embryo was not seen as a child.

You believe it is a child, but only for a very, very brief period in history was it actually considered as such by the majority of society.

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

Okay, I apologize if this was construed by anyone as belittling. It was not my intention.

I still believe that the reason abortions are legal is because people don't want to accept the consequences of their actions and are willing to justify murder in order to make life simpler for themselves. Yes, that can seem insulting and I'm sorry if that offends, but I can't in good conscience justify murder, simply to make people's lives more convenient.

Okay, I apologize if this was construed by anyone as belittling. It was not my intention.

I still believe that the reason abortions are legal is because people don't want to accept the consequences of their actions and are willing to justify murder in order to make life simpler for themselves. Yes, that can seem insulting and I'm sorry if that offends, but I can't in good conscience justify murder, simply to make people's lives more convenient.
See that is a MUCH better way to state it without insulting anyone :) I may not agree totaly but such is life with differing opinions

And yet you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that, up until the laws banning abortion were passed, an embryo was not seen as a child.

You believe it is a child, but only for a very, very brief period in history was it actually considered as such by the majority of society.

I don't know that you can say what the majority of society has ever believed on this subject with any kind of scientific accuracy. In general, it was not a society wide issue until the practice of abortion became prevalent and used as a means of birth control. So, to say that any legal precedent really exists on this issue is strained at best.

See that is a MUCH better way to state it without insulting anyone :) I may not agree totaly but such is life with differing opinions

I'm glad that it makes someone feel better. :)

I'm glad that it makes someone feel better. :)
Things are easier to discuss if there are not any overt dissonant overtones (meaning belittling or insulting) people keep anger out of their replies more (and not many people discuss well when replying with anger)

Things are easier to discuss if there are not any overt dissonant overtones (meaning belittling or insulting) people keep anger out of their replies more (and not many people discuss well when replying with anger)

Believe me, having been the object of many belittling comments, even in this thread, I understand that. I didn't intend for my comments to be intentionally insulting and am sorry they were construed to be such.

Replys in bold

One is wholly dependent upon the other. Thus, if one is trivial, then both are.



Why is somone alive 2 minutes before brain-death and dead just after? Are there trumpets sounding and angels singing?

One minute it is living tissue and one minute it is dead tissue. The same cannot be said about the condition of the fetus at the 20th week (or whenever else you want to place it if not at conception.


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.

No ignorance whatsoever. The genetics of the baby is already determined. When did you think the genetics are inserted into the fetus? It is already given to the fetus at the time the sperm entered the egg the genteics were done. As to fat or skinny, you will find that the metabolism of people seems to have some basis in genetics and some people seem to be predisposed to be either fat or skinny, I was referring to that. From genetic research we WILL be able to do what I said, you wait and see. It's not even hard to fathom.



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.

Nah, mine was more beleivable. But nice try anyway.


Just like the question of slavery was finished for generations because so many people thought it was ok?

exactly. When enough people finally decided that slavery was wrong, they got together and changed the law. The stoped the other people from having their freedom of choice in the matter and said, "We don't care if you think they are fully human or not, we know they are, so you can't do that to them anymore." Then, there was a big war, maybe you heard of it?



....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.

Agreed, giving them as many choices as possible is good. Provided they don't choose to kill anyone.



If you don't like the word, then please - debate with what is said instead of what you want to hear.

Believe me, having been the object of many belittling comments, even in this thread, I understand that. I didn't intend for my comments to be intentionally insulting and am sorry they were construed to be such.
Its fine such is life :) and let me know if anything I ever say is belittling I don’t like to make light of others opinions even (not saying yours are) if they are silly to me

Its fine such is life :) and let me know if anything I ever say is belittling I don’t like to make light of others opinions even (not saying yours are) if they are silly to me

UT, you and G_n_I for the most part are the only people on this site with whom I disagree regularly that have not taken pot shots at me. I appreciate that. :fluffle: :fluffle:

UT, you and G_n_I for the most part are the only people on this site with whom I disagree regularly that have not taken pot shots at me. I appreciate that. :fluffle: :fluffle:
Yeah though I dont put it past us ... we try to be resonable but when the most basic viewpoints (axioms) differ its hard not to just say "where the fuck is that comin from" lol

Yeah though I dont put it past us ... we try to be resonable but when the most basic viewpoints (axioms) differ its hard not to just say "where the fuck is that comin from" lol

I guess there's a reason Paul was accused of being one of those Christian's who "turns the world upside down". I know my views are very different, but I appreciate your willingness to at least consider them.

I guess there's a reason Paul was accused of being one of those Christian's who "turns the world upside down". I know my views are very different, but I appreciate your willingness to at least consider them.
Thats your right ... most of us get so used to trying to defend all rights that we tend to polerize on the far side of most of the challangers

Meaning for example religion in science room
we get so used to trying to remove the religious influance in what should be a class with example on process of the scientific method
that most of us get into the "no religion" mode when most of our beliefs are ACTUALY removing the influance from THAT class (and should not roll over into private meetings nor theology classes)

Sorry babbling but I just mean we have to defend the choice so much by being on the opposite side of the middle for that topic that we have a tendancy not to go back to fredom on both sides

Thats your right ... most of us get so used to trying to defend all rights that we tend to polerize on the far side of most of the challangers

Meaning for example religion in science room
we get so used to trying to remove the religious influance in what should be a class with example on process of the scientific method
that most of us get into the "no religion" mode when most of our beliefs are ACTUALY removing the influance from THAT class (and should not roll over into private meetings nor theology classes)

Sorry babbling but I just mean we have to defend the choice so much by being on the opposite side of the middle for that topic that we have a tendancy not to go back to fredom on both sides

I get the point, but please don't get me started on the issue of science classes that teach specific issues and belief structures rather than methodology and should really should be origins classes instead ;)

Okay, I apologize if this was construed by anyone as belittling. It was not my intention.

I still believe that the reason abortions are legal is because people don't want to accept the consequences of their actions and are willing to justify murder in order to make life simpler for themselves. Yes, that can seem insulting and I'm sorry if that offends, but I can't in good conscience justify murder, simply to make people's lives more convenient.

Better, but you are still being insulting.

Read what you wrote. It essentially says:

"Everyone agrees with my views deep down. The only reason they pretend to disagree is that they don't want to take responsibility for their actions."

Has the thought never crossed your mind that different people have a different idea of what constitutes "taking responsibility for your actions"? Has the thought ever never crossed your mind that you are not infallible and there are people who genuinely disagree with you?

I get the point, but please don't get me started on the issue of science classes that teach specific issues and belief structures rather than methodology and should really should be origins classes instead ;)
Hey evolution is just one example of the theory applied to the every day world and its one with a lot of interest. Banning that is like us banning theology classes from teaching the walk on water story from Christian teachings

We can have problems with teaching religion or theology in school but there is no basis for me to oppose one specific story because I don’t personally believe that a person actually walked on water
It like many other of the stories in the bible are just examples to get the point across

Anyways (back to topic) lol

Better, but you are still being insulting.

Read what you wrote. It essentially says:

"Everyone agrees with my views deep down. The only reason they pretend to disagree is that they don't want to take responsibility for their actions."

Has the thought never crossed your mind that different people have a different idea of what constitutes "taking responsibility for your actions"? Has the thought ever never crossed your mind that you are not infallible and there are people who genuinely disagree with you?

I've stated repeatedly that I'm fallible, if you read back a little. I recognize that people have different ideas about what personal responsibility in this situation is. I just believe they are wrong and that there is an underlying reason for accepting said position that I believe to be wrong. I'm sorry my opinion is insulting to you, but it is what I believe to be true.

Hey evolution is just one example of the theory applied to the every day world and its one with a lot of interest. Banning that is like us banning theology classes from teaching the walk on water story from Christian teachings

We can have problems with teaching religion or theology in school but there is no basis for me to oppose one specific story because I don’t personally believe that a person actually walked on water
It like many other of the stories in the bible are just examples to get the point across

Anyways (back to topic) lol


Have to get in the last word on that one huh? Okay, I'll give it to you this time... :p

Replys in bold

You know, using the quote tags isn't all that hard, unless of course - you were simply trying to keep me from replying?

One minute it is living tissue and one minute it is dead tissue.

Incorrect. The tissue itself takes a while to die. This does not happen the minute brain-death is reached. In fact, that is why we have organ donors - the organ tissue is still alive. It is the person who is dead.

No ignorance whatsoever. The genetics of the baby is already determined.

And all of those things are not directly determined by genetics - thus, your ignorance. Also, a clear indication that you didn't actually bother to read my reply, and/or didn't understand it.

From genetic research we WILL be able to do what I said, you wait and see. It's not even hard to fathom.

From genetic research, we will be able to determine what epigenetic changes may happen much later and predict the environment of the possible child throughout its entire maturation? Wow! i didn't know things like what it will eat are encoded in the genes!

Nah, mine was more beleivable. But nice try anyway.

No, it really wasn't.

exactly. When enough people finally decided that slavery was wrong, they got together and changed the law.

So it is all about majority rules, and not civil rights. I see how you think now. I guess if the majority of people thought we should sacrifice everyone born on a Tuesday, you'd be ok with that? We could put that in the Constitution?

Agreed, giving them as many choices as possible is good. Provided they don't choose to kill anyone , with "anyone" being by my personal definition, everyone else be damned.

Corrections in bold.

UT, you and G_n_I for the most part are the only people on this site with whom I disagree regularly that have not taken pot shots at me. I appreciate that. :fluffle: :fluffle:

*wonders when exactly I have taken "pot-shots"*

You have misinterpreted things I have said. You have been insulted by them. But I have yet to ever take a "pot-shot" at you.

Have to get in the last word on that one huh? Okay, I'll give it to you this time... :p
Sorry dident mean to do that :) we will start a topic sometime and you can have the first word :)

I've stated repeatedly that I'm fallible, if you read back a little. I recognize that people have different ideas about what personal responsibility in this situation is. I just believe they are wrong and that there is an underlying reason for accepting said position that I believe to be wrong. I'm sorry my opinion is insulting to you, but it is what I believe to be true.

Now, that is better - and is not what you said before at all.

Believing they are wrong is much different from implying that they agree with you and are "just making excuses".

Meanwhile, I don't see how your opinion could be insulting to me, considering that I pretty much agree with it.

*wonders when exactly I have taken "pot-shots"*

You have misinterpreted things I have said. You have been insulted by them. But I have yet to ever take a "pot-shot" at you.

You have said things that were equally or more insulting than the comment you pointed out previously and rather than argue with you about whether or I not I had reason to feel insulted. I'd prefer to drop the issue, particularly when I have pointed instances out to you before only to be further insulted.

Now, that is better - and is not what you said before at all.

Believing they are wrong is much different from implying that they agree with you and are "just making excuses".

Meanwhile, I don't see how your opinion could be insulting to me, considering that I pretty much agree with it.


Glad I could make you happy, but if you look close enough, I said exactly the same thing I said on each other occasion, just in different words.

Sorry dident mean to do that :) we will start a topic sometime and you can have the first word :)

Thanks UT, but I think we've debated that issue ad nausium. I accept that we have to agree to disagree on the subject.

I find the whole situation very frustrating. Being on the sidelines & having no real say in the matter can just tear a person up inside.
Now I have to say many men have created a culture of women having all the power in society. The "shes Pregnant, I'm outta here" approach to father hood is ramppant.
So one if men want to be more of a part of the process we need to hold each other more accountable for our actions

How many of you out there know someone who bragged about getting a girl pregnant & then did nothing to help the poor girl out? Hold them accountable any way that you can. Then our say in matters will hold more weight.

2 We need to fight for our rights as parents after birth if that is the choice made. Ways of thinking will never be changed if we don't stand up for ourselves as parents. Fathers can be just as good at being parents as mothers & in some cases they can be the better parent.

I think if we do these things it will easr the frustration of those of us trying to be good peoplke & do the right thing.

You know, using the quote tags isn't all that hard, unless of course - you were simply trying to keep me from replying?

My bust, good point. I won’t do that again. Thought I found a quicker way to respond. :)



Incorrect. The tissue itself takes a while to die. This does not happen the minute brain-death is reached. In fact, that is why we have organ donors - the organ tissue is still alive. It is the person who is dead.
Who said anything about brain death? I didn’t except in the euthanasia for brain dead didn’t apply to fetuses argument. Dead tissue, is dead tissue. It’s just not tissue that’s been dead long enough to go bad. Organs are re-animated, re-started, when they are transplanted.



And all of those things are not directly determined by genetics - thus, your ignorance. Also, a clear indication that you didn't actually bother to read my reply, and/or didn't understand it. Sure I read it, and yes they will be able to do it. Genetics will determine how tall you can be if healthy and fully nourished. Hair color and eye color and body features (like skin tone, freckles, birth marks, eye shape etc., it’s all in there already. That’s why we look like our ancestors, you know this, why are you acting like I’m talking about walking on water?… It’s all in the genetics and staying healthy.


From genetic research, we will be able to determine what epigenetic changes may happen much later and predict the environment of the possible child throughout its entire maturation? Wow! I didn't know things like what it will eat are encoded in the genes!
Are we still talking about fat or not? A naturally 150lb man with thin wrists and lighter frame, is not going to become a 300lb lineman on a football team no matter what he eats, genetics does that. You aren’t trying to say that your sex, height, eyes, hair and skin tone are things that influenced by your diet are you?



So it is all about majority rules, and not civil rights. I see how you think now. I guess if the majority of people thought we should sacrifice everyone born on a Tuesday, you'd be ok with that? We could put that in the Constitution?

Majority does rule to a degree. We decide that illicit drugs are illegal, we decide that communities can regulate when you can’t buy and sell liquor or alcohol, we decide community agreed upon standards of conduct for everything from public nudity to wearing your seatbelt… And why would you be surprised that we have rules that say you can’t own slaves, you can’t have multiple wives, you can’t torture animals even if you own them and you can’t kill your fetus?

It’s what communities do, we call it civilization. We make rules that the community agrees to live by, and very seldom will we make rules that everyone agrees to, no some people will vehemently oppose it, that’s why we need the rules. But their protest doesn’t matter if the powers that be feel they have the right to force everyone that objects to obey anyway, willingly or not. Much like ending slavery or ending segregation (and maybe in the future the abolition of pre-birth infanticide as well), if the powers that be feel strongly enough the individual communities in the larger congregation of the communities will no longer have the right to choose not to obey either.

The ‘right-to-be-born’ movement just might prevail because it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

And the woman has the choice to do the same with men … kind of fair is it not

Not to the child. When the woman does it, no child comes into existance. When a man does it, it leaves children to be cared for by a single parent financially and physically.

This, with everything else we've discussed, would definitely get my vote. Completely fair and equitable for everyone involved. *thumbs up*

Sure. Oh, wait, there's that silly child-thing that pops up and wants to be cared for.

Not to the child. When the woman does it, no child comes into existance. When a man does it, it leaves children to be cared for by a single parent financially and physically.
That’s why he is supposed to get a response back soon enough that she can choose adoption or abortion

That’s why he is supposed to get a response back soon enough that she can choose adoption or abortion

He made his choice when he had sex with her. Period. End of story. And I'm not one bit sorry for him. He should offer to marry her if possible, or if not or if she is not willing, then he should willingly do everything in his power to ensure that the child is raised with the benefit of having two adults taking care of them, regardless if both parents live in the same household.

If he tries to run off though, then we smack him up and fine his share out of his wages, if that still doens't work, then we throw him in prison because it's child neglect and that against the law...

He made his choice when he had sex with her. Period. End of story. And I not one bit sorry for him. He should offer the marry, if possible, or if not, then willingly do everything in his power to ensure that the child is raised with the benefit of having two adults take care of them, regardless if both people live in the same household.

If he tries to run off, then we smack him up and fine his share out of his wages against his will, if that still doens't work, throw him in prison because it's child neglect and that against the law...
That’s your opinion which is alright to have but that’s not necessarily all our view points. If the woman has a right to terminate both her physical and financial ties to the kid that she does not want the male should have the right to separate his financial ties as well (as there is no real physical ties)

That’s your opinion which is alright to have but that’s not necessarily all our view points. If the woman has a right to terminate both her physical and financial ties to the kid that she does not want the male should have the right to separate his financial ties as well (as there is no real physical ties)

Nope, he shouldn't have those rights. It's not the kids fault that he/she has a prick, useless abomination, for a father, someone that doesn't think he should have to support his own offspring. Then he can keep his own prick in his hand ~ and should have. But now it's too late. His choice was made when he copulated with the mother. He has no right to cry about it now.

Nope, he shouldn't have those rights. It's not the kids fault that he/she has a prick, useless abomination, for a father, someone that doesn't think he should have to support his own offspring. Then he can keep his own prick in his hand ~ and should have. But now it's too late. His choice was made when he copulated with the mother. He has no right to cry about it now.
That’s why the early warning … its not a “kid” yet

Providing her with the ability to make a decision on her future as well

That’s why the early warning … its not a “kid” yet

Providing her with the ability to make a decision on her future as well

Nope, there is no early warning. He can choose to not put himself in that situation. He can choose to not have sex with someone that he doesn't want to have children with. He can choose to have relations that won't lead to fetilization ~ but he CAN'T choose to tell a child that they don't have a father. He can't choose to tell an offspring that he's not obligated to pay for them because he gave up his perental rights (what if the child doesn't agree to give up their right to have a relationship with their father?).

Nope, it's too late. There are no choices for him to make anymore except one. He can choose to do the right thing or choose to be a pigish and useless sloth, a pimple on the ass of the community he lives in.

Nope, there is no early warning. He can choose to not put himself in that situation. He can choose to not have sex with someone that he doesn't want to have children with. He can choose to have relations that won't lead to fetilization ~ but he CAN'T choose to tell a child that they don't have a father. He can't choose to tell an offspring that he's not obligated to pay for them because he gave up his perental rights (what if the child doesn't agree to give up their right to have a relationship with their father?).

Nope, it's too late, no choices to be made for him anymore except choosing to do the right thing or choosing to be a pigish and useless sloth, a pimple on the ass of the community he lives in.
Hey I did not say it was the right choice just that he should have one

You have every right to not like his decision (and it is not one I could make) but he has a right to decide his future if she has a right to decide hers in that manner

I like to control my own future not leave it up to the woman to decide what the next 18 years of my life are going to be like (which as long as she has the right to abortion I support the right to a paper abortion)

That’s why he is supposed to get a response back soon enough that she can choose adoption or abortion

And if she chooses the keep the child the child is minus one parent. For many women, abortion is NOT an option. While this is true of many men, when a woman chooses to ignore the fact that abortion is NOT an option for a man, a child is not born. When a man ignores a woman's problem with it, a child is born and that child has rights.

And if she chooses the keep the child the child is minus one parent. For many women, abortion is NOT an option. While this is true of many men, when a woman chooses to ignore the fact that abortion is NOT an option for a man, a child is not born. When a man ignores a woman's problem with it, a child is born and that child has rights.
But even if abortion is not an option for her adoption is still open she has the right to weigh her feelings against the consequences at that point as well

That’s your opinion which is alright to have but that’s not necessarily all our view points. If the woman has a right to terminate both her physical and financial ties to the kid that she does not want the male should have the right to separate his financial ties as well (as there is no real physical ties)

Terminating financial ties is a side effect. If she chooses to keep the physical ties then she cannot take away the financial ties without the father's consent. Neither one of them gets to say anything about financial ties unless they both do. If the child comes into being the man and woman are financially responsible. If not, they're not. The woman is the only one who decides about the pregnancy because she is the only one pregnant. It is already equitable.

Hey I did not say it was the right choice just that he should have one

You have every right to not like his decision (and it is not one I could make) but he has a right to decide his future if she has a right to decide hers in that manner

I like to control my own future not leave it up to the woman to decide what the next 18 years of my life are going to be like (which as long as she has the right to abortion I support the right to a paper abortion)

He had control of his future, he had control of what he chooses to do. He then has the choice of taking care of his kid or running off. And then, society has the right to choose to kick his ass and throw him in jail if he can't at the very minimum pay child support (which isn't enough in my book).

He does not have the choice of not being a father if he is one. He does not have the choice of being anyone other than himself and the child does not have any choices in who their father is either.

You act like he had no choice but to sleep with the mother... Unless it was not for public use sperm bank stealing on her part, then he's fully obligated to act like a father, because he is one whether he wants to be one or not.

He had control of his future, he had control of what he chooses to do. He then has the choice of taking care of his kid or running off. And then, society has the right to choose to kick his ass and throw him in jail if he can't at the very minimum pay child support (which isn't enough in my book).

He does not have the choice of not being a father if he is one. He does not have the choice of being anyone other than himself and the child does not have any choices in who their father is either.

You act like he had no choice but to sleep with the mother... Unless it was not for public use sperm bank stealing on her part, then he's fully obligated to act like a father, because he is one whether he wants to be one or not.
And yet she has the right to decide if she wants to be a mother or not

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.

It has no bearing on whether abortion is murder. It has a great deal to do with whether abortion should be illegal.

And saying when pressed that you have "the utmost compassion" is rather hollow when you have called those same individuals murders that should be put to death.

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.

You are being disingenuous. You would seek to overturn a host of Supreme Court decisions and change the statutes of almost every state in the United States. If that is not a "change in any laws," then I know not what would qualify.

The rest of your statement merely shows your ignorance of the law and the relevant legal history.

Abortion was not illegal through much of the history of the U.S. When it became illegal, it was not motivated by a desire to protect fetal life but by a host of other reasons.

When Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was legal in at least 15 states. A trend of legalization was spreading across the U.S. It is highly unlikely that abortion would be widely illegal in the absence of Roe and its progeny.

I'd love to see you explain what in Roe is a "poor interpretation of the law."

I also wonder if you realize that Roe has been reaffirmed multiple times by the Supreme Court.

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.

My "emotional response." LOL.

I do not claim knowledge of pure objectivity.

But there is a world of difference between absolute objectivity and absoloute relativity. The absence of absolute objectivity does not make all things equally subjective.

Your attempt to equate all ideas as equally subjective either was a feeble attempt to avoid defending your views or is, in fact, an extreme view that makes discourse impossible.

*snip* 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.

Abortion is not murder. It never was under U.S law.

Roe and its progeny did not change the laws re murder. They never applied to abortion.

You either mistaken or making things up.

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.

Untrue. I'd love to see you prove that, prior to Roe, abortion was murder. It just is not so.

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.

LOL.

Please put to any language in the Constitution that would support the view that a fertilized egg is entitled to constitutional rights.

-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.

Honey, you don't even seem to know what your own definition of human personhood is, so maybe you shouldn't try to assume what mine is. You are a million miles off base from what I believe human personhood is, and you are once again arguing against nothing and nobody.

Also, I asked you to use "yes or no" for a reason.

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.

"You guys"? Who's "you guys"? Why do you insist on lumping all pro-choice people together? We don't agree all the time, and we have very different conceptions of life, personhood, and the extent of the right to choose. Until you understand that, you're not going to get anywhere in adult discussion on this issue.

Also, the growing physical entity isn't completely determined until it is dead, so it can't possibly be determined long before the day personhood begins. Unless you claim personhood begins at death, which would start us down a whole other theological debate. You need to learn more basic human genetics, physiology, and biology before you start making these wacky claims.


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.

Perhaps. But so what? What difference does that make? Some day we may be able to tell a person what her future children will look like 30 years before she conceives...we have no idea what our technology may one day accomplish. I don't see what bearing that has on any of this.


Just because we can’t do that yet doesn’t mean the truth of what I said isn’t already there.

Potentiality and actuality are not equivalent. This is a basic concept that you need to deal with before you procede.


-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.

America is a country designed to avoid tyranny of the majority. Some of the proudest moments in our history were when the majority's will was rejected; the end to slavery, equal rights for blacks, equal rights for women, desegregation of schools, interracial marriage, etc etc etc. Just because the majority of people like something doesn't make it right, true, or ethical.


Why are you offended by this? Are you afraid your side is going to lose? If not, you should be.

Actually, I'm not afraid in the slightest. It is possible that fundamentalists and radicals may hijack my government and take away human rights for a while, but if that happens I will simply leave and live in a country where my rights are respected. Of course, I don't think there is a chance in hell that an anti-abortion movement will succeed in the long term in America. I doubt abortion will ever be prohibited again, and if it is the prohibition will last only a handful of years.

Given that you and those on your "side" have shown yourselves to be ignorant of basic science, law, and ethics, I don't really see what there is to fear. You can't even define your own ideas...why should I worry about your ability to defend them?


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 that would be fine by me. The right to abortion is ONLY about the woman's right to her own body; what happens to the fetus is totally irrelevant. So long as a woman is granted full right to her body (the same right granted to all born humans), I couldn't care less what happens to the fetus.


And even if it never becomes illegal, Doctors will progressively refuse to perform abortions.

Interesting claim. Too bad that history doesn't seem to back you up at all. But you keep telling yourself that.


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.

Again, the right to have a pregnancy ended has nothing to do with the fate of the fetus. If doctors can remove viable fetuses rather than aborting them, and cause no extra injury to the female in doing so, then both sides can be happy. You won't have "won" or "lost" in that situation, we'll simply have reached a point where the debate can fizzle away with both sides satisfied.


To deny this reality now is to live with our eyes closed and our minds shut.

Right. Which is why nobody is doing that, and why you are once again setting up a straw man. It's getting boring saying that...please just knock it off and start participating in the actual discussion.

Pretending that a fetus viability is a valid point that choosing when and when not to allow an abortion.

You're right; a woman has the absolute right to end a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If the fetus is viable then I have no problem with it being removed intact, as long as that will not cause her any additional trauma, but she still has the right to end the pregnancy no matter what. Whether or not a fetus is alive or a human person is totally irrelevant to me.


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.

Actually, the odds of a fertilized egg becoming a human baby are less than 50%. I don't think that qualifies as "every reason in the world," since there is more reason to expect the embryo will never become a born human than there is to expect it will become a born human.


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.

Again, huh? Potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. If I go to the store and buy ingredients for some cookies, they aren't cookies when I'm at the checkout counter just because they will probably become cookies in the near future. No matter how determined I am to convert those ingredients into cookies, they won't taste like cookies if I eat them before the baking.

Also, this is your straw man again. I don't know anybody who is advocating that we "euthanize" fetuses because they are "brain dead."


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.

Believe me, we find you every bit as ammusing :). But, just to clarify something for you, the reason we repeat ourselves is to help you learn...you appear to be struggling, so we are trying to help these concepts stick in your mind. If you have a better way that we can help educate you please let us know.


(It’ll be interesting to see which one uses the word “strawman” first, again)
When you stop building them, we'll stop pointing to them.

Glad I could make you happy, but if you look close enough, I said exactly the same thing I said on each other occasion, just in different words.

So which is it? Do you believe that people can disagree? Or do you believe that they all agree with you deep down and have to justify and make excuses?

Who said anything about brain death?

You did, in the post I was replying to.

Dead tissue, is dead tissue. It’s just not tissue that’s been dead long enough to go bad. Organs are re-animated, re-started, when they are transplanted.

Incorrect yet again! Do you intentionally just not read what I write?

At the point when the brain dies, all of the organs are still functioning. The heart is still beating, the organs are still metabolizing. Only the brain dies at that exact point. The organs are then essentially put in stasis - with metabolism slowed to the point that the cells don't seem to be alive, but still are - they are never killed. The tissue itself is never dead throughout the process. The human being, however, is.

Sure I read it, and yes they will be able to do it. Genetics will determine how tall you can be if healthy and fully nourished. Hair color and eye color and body features (like skin tone, freckles, birth marks, eye shape etc., it’s all in there already. That’s why we look like our ancestors, you know this, why are you acting like I’m talking about walking on water?… It’s all in the genetics and staying healthy.

Your insistence on asserting your lack of knowledge is amazing. Take some biology courses. None of these traits are completely determined by genetics. Some of them really aren't determined by genetics at all.

I hate to break it to you, but your elementary school view of biology is incorrect. Everything about a person is not determined by genetics.

You aren’t trying to say that your sex, height, eyes, hair and skin tone are things that influenced by your diet are you?

Your hair and skin tone certainly are. The expression of sex hormones is also influenced by diet. Your eye color and hair color have been shown to be affected by epigenetic factors - which would not be determined at the point in pregnancy which you are talking about.

Majority does rule to a degree. We decide that illicit drugs are illegal, we decide that communities can regulate when you can’t buy and sell liquor or alcohol, we decide community agreed upon standards of conduct for everything from public nudity to wearing your seatbelt… And why would you be surprised that we have rules that say you can’t own slaves, you can’t have multiple wives, you can’t torture animals even if you own them and you can’t kill your fetus?

Notice that most of the things you listed have nothing to do with religion - and are, in fact, for better or worse, proposed due to objective reasons. I have yet to see an argument against early-term abortion that wasn't either "My preacher told me so" or "I just say so." Those aren't exactly objective reasons, now are they?

And if she chooses the keep the child the child is minus one parent.

Which, if the man is the type who would choose the paper abortion route, is a good thing.

Again, as men if we want to see fewer abortions we need to take more responsability. You can't be pro-life & then support with appathy the man bolting.

This should never have been a matter of law in the first place. I find it sad that it is. The decession should be made by the two people that created the situation.

Unfortunately for the woman she bears most of physical consequence either way. It then has to be more her choice. We have to suck it up and accept that.

BUT FACT= MORE MEN WHO STICK AROUND = LESS ABORTIONS
Most women who have them agonize over the choice & deal with the pain later. Those that don't should never have been mothers in the first place.

Everyone else needs to but out of the personal choice until invited in or the people involved are proven not competent to make the choice. Hands down.

He made his choice when he had sex with her. Period. End of story. And I'm not one bit sorry for him. He should offer to marry her if possible,

Yes, everyone should put themselves and their future child into a horribly unhealthy situation. That'll fix things right up.

Getting married because of a child is arguably the worst reason to even consider it.

Yes, everyone should put themselves and their future child into a horribly unhealthy situation. That'll fix things right up.

Getting married because of a child is arguably the worst reason to even consider it.

Agreed that is a horrible decission.
The man should go for joint legal custody & joint legal care of the child at least though.

Any decent human being should want to take their part of the responsibility of caring for their child.

You did, in the post I was replying to.



Incorrect yet again! Do you intentionally just not read what I write?

At the point when the brain dies, all of the organs are still functioning. The heart is still beating, the organs are still metabolizing. Only the brain dies at that exact point. The organs are then essentially put in stasis - with metabolism slowed to the point that the cells don't seem to be alive, but still are - they are never killed. The tissue itself is never dead throughout the process. The human being, however, is.



Your insistence on asserting your lack of knowledge is amazing. Take some biology courses. None of these traits are completely determined by genetics. Some of them really aren't determined by genetics at all.

I hate to break it to you, but your elementary school view of biology is incorrect. Everything about a person is not determined by genetics.



Your hair and skin tone certainly are. The expression of sex hormones is also influenced by diet. Your eye color and hair color have been shown to be affected by epigenetic factors - which would not be determined at the point in pregnancy which you are talking about.



Notice that most of the things you listed have nothing to do with religion - and are, in fact, for better or worse, proposed due to objective reasons. I have yet to see an argument against early-term abortion that wasn't either "My preacher told me so" or "I just say so." Those aren't exactly objective reasons, now are they?
Have I sung your praises yet today, Demi?

Oh how I love having other scientists around here...there was a time, back in the dawn of memory, when I was pretty much the only vocal biologist roaming this forum. Those were dark and horrible days.

Yes, everyone should put themselves and their future child into a horribly unhealthy situation. That'll fix things right up.

Getting married because of a child is arguably the worst reason to even consider it.
Why do so many people continue to insist that consenting to sex = consenting to have a child? That's like saying that choosing to drive a car means you consent to have your rib cage crushed in an accident and will not seek any medical help if that occurs. It's just such an absurd viewpoint that I can't wrap my head around it.

I love how people suggest that not wanting to emotionally care for a child makes a man unsuitable to give the child money. The courts hold and should hold that a child deserves financial support from both parents. Suggesting otherwise is ignoring the child to correct an inequity that does not exist. Women are the only ones pregnant so they are the only ones who can choose not to be pregnant. They are not permitted to opt out of fiscal responsibility with putting the child up for adoption with the father's consent and no one has every guaranteed them that right.

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.

Sorry if I confused.. I wasn't trying to bring rape into the debate, as such... but along with my testimony about this backwater I inhabit, it was evidence of a backwards way of thought. We are risking reverting to a less rationale age, and that scares me.

I cannot accept conception as the onset of life. It makes no sense. Sperm are alive, and ova are alive. They do not become any MORE alive in conception. Fully a third of all concepta drop straight through WITHOUT implantation... which seems fairly wasteful if conception was the start of life.

Also- conception isn't an 'instant', but a process... where, within the PROCESS of conception does the entity become a 'human life'? And why?

I can see a rationale for the start of brain function as the beginning of human life (rather than human living tissue) which is based upon the END point of life.

It is usually assumed that brain-death marks the end of the 'life' of a human body. It seems fair, then, that brain-commencement should mark the beginning, no?

-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.


First - I'm not sure any of the others debating here has ACTUALLY agreed with my definition of when life commences, yet? Perhaps they haven't argued against it, perhaps they agree, perhaps they just consider my (admittedly) in-between date to be less threatening than either end of the spectrum, so have overlooked it?

It isn't arbitrary, or trivial... and it certainly isn't as flippant as you suggest. Where did I say 20 weeks ON THE DOT? Where did I mention one or two minutes either side? As far as I recall, I used teh 'date' as a rough guideline, only... and said that I believed the DEVELOPEMENT (i.e. the functionality of the brain) was the determining device.

You have no better argument AGAINST that time than 'yeah, well, I don't think so'... so, I see it as logically unassailed, as to yet.

By the way 'straw stooges'? Okay...


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.


No - someday technology will be able to give probability for most of those things. But, your straw friend is irrelevent anyway.


-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: I'm not offended by democracy (or the American 'version' of it) at all. What I am offended by is the fact that some people in a nation will try to change the rules of the WHOLE nation, based on nothing but their religion.

Second: What do you mean, "afraid to lose"? Pro-Choice does NOT equal Pro-Abortion. If another alternative can be found that STILL allows a woman to decide what she wants in her uterus, I would vote for it.

Oddly, what you seem to be describing as though you envision it the worst nightmare for the Pro-Choice lobby, is actually something I think most Pro-Choice advocates would endorse.... that is - a technological solution... finding a way to extract an unwanted foetus WITHOUT losing the foetus.

Your focus, my friend, is skewed. Pro-Choice does not mean 'Anti-Foetus'... it means 'in favour of the right of the woman to chose the occupants of her uterus'.

So - not surprisingly, (once again) I am afraid you have brought nothing to the table but cereal.


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.


A foetus isn't 'as much as a plant', my friend, it is as much as a seed. Metaphorically. I am not debating 'life' or 'being alive' or 'being human', so much as I am debating the specific: i.e. Being a HUMAN life.

Cancer is human tissue, and alive... but NOT a human life.


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)

More insults, my friend? You do yourself disservice, I am afraid.

Okay, I apologize if this was construed by anyone as belittling. It was not my intention.

I still believe that the reason abortions are legal is because people don't want to accept the consequences of their actions and are willing to justify murder in order to make life simpler for themselves. Yes, that can seem insulting and I'm sorry if that offends, but I can't in good conscience justify murder, simply to make people's lives more convenient.

We've been here before, my old friend... and you are resorting to using emotional blackmail, I'm afraid.

Legally, we have ascertained that, for AT LEAST two reasons, abortion cannot be murder. Thus - to continue to argue that phrasing is to appeal to emotion... which is perhaps not the best form of debate.

That aside... I agree that for SOME people, abortion is all the things you say... a quick way to fix mistakes.

However, it isn't the whole picture... and that is the greater part of WHY abortion rights must be protected.

To trivialise it down to 'f**k-and-run' politics (pardon my French) is to ignore how difficult the decision to pursue abortion IS for many women, not to mention how expensive. It is also missing the fact that 'convenience' is a throwaway term, that demeans what can be a very important issue.

Example: A person lacks any means to gain another job, or any extra income. At this moment they are EXACTLY on their subsistence level. Even the added cost of pregnancy (ignoring birth and all that follows) will be too much for this family unit to bear. In this case, abortion is 'convenient'. It is also the ONLY responsible option.

I love how people suggest that not wanting to emotionally care for a child makes a man unsuitable to give the child money.

It makes him unsuitable to be in the child's life at all. If a man is not willing to take care of his child, he should have no dealings with it whatsoever. This way, the child does not have to go through dealing with a deadbeat. The same goes for a mother who is not willing to take care of her child - she should be removed from its life entirely.

Money can come from many places. Emotional support can only comef rom the willing.

I don't know that you can say what the majority of society has ever believed on this subject with any kind of scientific accuracy. In general, it was not a society wide issue until the practice of abortion became prevalent and used as a means of birth control. So, to say that any legal precedent really exists on this issue is strained at best.

Not sure how significant your comment is, when you face the fact that women have been aborting unwanted offspring for millenia.

One minute it is living tissue and one minute it is dead tissue. The same cannot be said about the condition of the fetus at the 20th week (or whenever else you want to place it if not at conception.


Even at conception, the tissuse is live... THAT is not the issue.

The issue is, is that tissue a PERSON at conception... is the life a HUMAN LIFE... rather than just live human tissue?

In that regard... why NOT brain activity?


No ignorance whatsoever. The genetics of the baby is already determined. When did you think the genetics are inserted into the fetus? It is already given to the fetus at the time the sperm entered the egg the genteics were done. As to fat or skinny, you will find that the metabolism of people seems to have some basis in genetics and some people seem to be predisposed to be either fat or skinny, I was referring to that. From genetic research we WILL be able to do what I said, you wait and see. It's not even hard to fathom.

And height.... like I said... you can determine PROBABILITES for many things... tendencies, perhaps. But environment is still going to win out, ultimately.

Example.... genetic disposition towards a heroic stature, but NO exercise... or genetic disposition towards being tall, but poor diet...

UT, you and G_n_I for the most part are the only people on this site with whom I disagree regularly that have not taken pot shots at me. I appreciate that. :fluffle: :fluffle:

Most welcome, and I thank you for the same consideration.

My debate technique is usually to attack the argument... not the proponent.

Most welcome, and I thank you for the same consideration.

My debate technique is usually to attack the argument... not the proponent.

Unfortunately, PR apparently often views an attack on the argument as an attack on the proponent. *shrug*

He made his choice when he had sex with her. Period. End of story. And I'm not one bit sorry for him. He should offer to marry her if possible, or if not or if she is not willing, then he should willingly do everything in his power to ensure that the child is raised with the benefit of having two adults taking care of them, regardless if both parents live in the same household.

If he tries to run off though, then we smack him up and fine his share out of his wages, if that still doens't work, then we throw him in prison because it's child neglect and that against the law...

I'm curious about this... the same people who complain about the falling opinions on 'sanctity of marriage' and who talk about the 'sanctity of human life'.... are so often the same people that think a pregnant girl should have her baby - because she somehow deserves to (yep - use childbirth as a PUNISHMENT)... and that couples should get married JUST because of conception (Well, that just make a mockery of the whole 'sanctity' issue).

Unfortunately, PR apparently often views an attack on the argument as an attack on the proponent. *shrug*

To be honest, I was somewhat surprised that PR thought you were an attacker.... as far as I could tell, the two of you share similar views... the big difference being whether those views should become Law.

At least, that's how I'd been seeing it...?

then he's fully obligated to act like a father, because he is one whether he wants to be one or not.

I've been refraining from adressing the last few of your posts... since they are basically venting, I think... your excuse to heap insulting terms upon those with different views to your own.

Well, good luck with that. Hope it makes you feel better.

I had to point out, in this post, however, that you are confusing your personal opinion with any form of (what we like to call) 'reality'.

Copulation does not carry any obligations, except those which we ourselves impose.

hmm, resoponibilities of pregnancy. I dunno, when I was growing up I know I always secretly wanted to be an incubater. After all, what woman wouldn't want to be a walking womb? :rolleyes:

Anyone catch "The Cat-Tribe's" sig?

Ironic that he is so adamantly pro-abortion. :D

hmm, resoponibilities of pregnancy. I dunno, when I was growing up I know I always secretly wanted to be an incubater. After all, what woman wouldn't want to be a walking womb? :rolleyes:
Especially if it means you can also stay in the kitchen, forgo an individual life and career, and dedicate yourself to producing heirs for your lord husband! Why would these hairy-legged feminazis want to turn down that sort of bliss?

Anyone catch "The Cat-Tribe's" sig?

Ironic that he is so adamantly pro-abortion. :D

He isn't 'pro-abortion'.... I'm not sure he has expressed ANY preference over the matter of abortion.

What he IS, is in favour of each woman being given the choice what to do with her OWN uterus. To decide for herself if she wants abortion, or not.

Cat-Tribes is Pro-Choice.

Look more closely, my friend, and you'll see that many of the people arguing 'pro-choice' are actually anti-abortion in their OWN beliefs.... they just don't believe that they have justification (in a democratic society) to enforce that view on anyone else.

Look more closely, my friend, and you'll see that many of the people arguing 'pro-choice' are actually anti-abortion in their OWN beliefs.... they just don't believe that they have justification (in a democratic society) to enforce that view on anyone else.

Some people don't believe you can possibly follow your own moral code. If you aren't trying to force it upon others, you must not really believe it ot be correct, right? If you can't make everyone else agree, you must be wrong!

He isn't 'pro-abortion'.... I'm not sure he has expressed ANY preference over the matter of abortion.

What he IS, is in favour of each woman being given the choice what to do with her OWN uterus. To decide for herself if she wants abortion, or not.

Cat-Tribes is Pro-Choice.

Look more closely, my friend, and you'll see that many of the people arguing 'pro-choice' are actually anti-abortion in their OWN beliefs.... they just don't believe that they have justification (in a democratic society) to enforce that view on anyone else.
Yup Im one of them

*snip*

And height.... like I said... you can determine PROBABILITES for many things... tendencies, perhaps. But environment is still going to win out, ultimately.

Example.... genetic disposition towards a heroic stature, but NO exercise... or genetic disposition towards being tall, but poor diet... IF by environment you mean ‘exercise and full nourishment’ is required for you to be all that you ‘can’ be, than I agree. If you mean that we can substantially change our body type via environment, I disagree. However, I think we agree more than not on this part…

I'm curious about this... the same people who complain about the falling opinions on 'sanctity of marriage' and who talk about the 'sanctity of human life'.... are so often the same people that think a pregnant girl should have her baby - because she somehow deserves to (yep - use childbirth as a PUNISHMENT)... and that couples should get married JUST because of conception (Well, that just make a mockery of the whole 'sanctity' issue).

What part are you curious about? If the scale to be used is the good of the community, as the judge of what is better and what is worse, then I can easily argue statistically that “shotgun” weddings and arranged marriages were MORE successful that what we have today. IF we use the scale of individual children growing up with two parents, the old system works community wise better than the new.

However, several of the people here want to point out that having one good parent is better than having one good and one evil monster. Sure, I can agree with that. But I can equally say, how many monsters are there really? And in my point of view, they are a different issue entirely. They should be removed from the community with or without children.

When I say I think men should propose to the mother if they have an unplanned pregnancy, I’m saying that as a community, we can request that he not only propose so that he can then become a bad father, who cheats on his wife and beats the kids. I’m saying that as a community WE are responsible for how we behave. WE allow our friends to cheat on their wives, because we don’t tell them that they are shitheads for doing it. We allow our friends and neighbors to beat their kids, because we as a community don’t walk over there and kick his ass when he’s doing it to them. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, and right now, in America, we think ‘it’s none of our business,’ and we look the other way. Our entire community is ‘enabling’ the rotten behaviors to not just continue, but multiply by our example to our children.

We have a right to say no, I don’t want to live in a community with no rules anymore. You cheat on your wife and brag about it at the local bar? He should be shunned, no friends and an outcast. You beat your wife kids? You should be in jail, and if you are just abusive and a non-loving jerk to your family, your co-workers, neighbors, church and friends, the entire community, should kick yours figuratively or in actual if you don’t stop it.

It’s just like the pictures of guys arrested for hiring prostitutes are put in the newspapers now to embarrass them, except it doesn’t go far enough. Wife and child beaters, adulterers, dead-beat parents etc., should be put in there too. I don’t mean the paper per-se, but the way society agrees to behave. If my Son does it, I’ll kick his butt. If my brother does it, I’ll kick his. If I do it, they should all kick mine… Community peer pressure for the betterment of the whole society.

You did, in the post I was replying to.
At the point when the brain dies, all of the organs are still functioning. The heart is still beating, the organs are still metabolizing. Only the brain dies at that exact point. The organs are then essentially put in stasis - with metabolism slowed to the point that the cells don't seem to be alive, but still are - they are never killed. The tissue itself is never dead throughout the process. The human being, however, is. Are you saying that they take a person’s heart out while it is still beating? I don’t think so. I think they wait for a time of death to be determined and documented BEFORE they start taking out body parts. And that, invariably, means that not only is there no heart beat, but that resuscitating the person failed. If I am wrong, perhaps you will tell me which hospitals start taking your body organs out before your dead, that way we can avoid going to them…


Your insistence on asserting your lack of knowledge is amazing. Take some biology courses. None of these traits are completely determined by genetics. Some of them really aren't determined by genetics at all. Such as what? Gender? Ethnic traits? Because if you know how a person can change any of those things in their child, and you know how a pregnant woman can influence her baby’s traits before birth regardless of genetics, you should write a book, it would be an international best seller overnight if it works. We’ll have ‘designer’ children in no time.


I hate to break it to you, but your elementary school view of biology is incorrect. Everything about a person is not determined by genetics. Your hair and skin tone certainly are. The expression of sex hormones is also influenced by diet. Your eye color and hair color have been shown to be affected by epigenetic factors - which would not be determined at the point in pregnancy which you are talking about.
I’ll agree that not everything such as physical health and conditioning is genetics, – but the stuff I said, Hair color, eye color, ethnic traits, height and body type are all genetics. Even a predisposition to various health issues are determined by a persons genetics. If epigenetic factors become involved, they can ‘change’ the outcome, but the blueprint of the body is laid by the genetics. Epigenetic changes can’t occur unless the genetics are already there, there is nothing to ‘alter’ if it were otherwise.

Secondary point, I covered that anyway, by saying ‘healthy and nourished’ and non-molested, but you decided to ignore that and assume I didn’t know about epigenetic variances being able to change the tissues growing essence (like alligator eggs being mostly female at one temperature and mostly male if at a different tempeture during incubation). But normally these factors are involved with diseases in humans, like cancer and deadly abnormalities in from drug use (for example) during pregnancies.

So, in other words, it has no bearing on my original statement/prediction that early pregnancy tests “will” be able to tell parents all those sorts of things about their fetuses in the future ~ and if we still allow abortion on demand then, I can only imagine the horror of aborting only the babies that won’t be smart enough, or strong enough, or good looking enough to make us want them before they are even formed, health will not be the determining qualification anymore. All the rich people will have perfect kids and the poor people that can’t afford the tests, will have the sick, the normal and the ugly children… What a world that would be eh? Maybe we should just end abortion on demand now before we turn into a human race of cattle, or pure-bread horses and dogs, incapable of even breeding without artificial assistance and our papers of origin…


Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
Majority does rule to a degree. We decide that illicit drugs are illegal, we decide that communities can regulate when you can’t buy and sell liquor or alcohol, we decide community agreed upon standards of conduct for everything from public nudity to wearing your seatbelt… And why would you be surprised that we have rules that say you can’t own slaves, you can’t have multiple wives, you can’t torture animals even if you own them and you can’t kill your fetus?

Notice that most of the things you listed have nothing to do with religion - and are, in fact, for better or worse, proposed due to objective reasons. I have yet to see an argument against early-term abortion that wasn't either "My preacher told me so" or "I just say so." Those aren't exactly objective reasons, now are they? I’m sorry, I understand your point, but it’s not actually valid. The ONLY reason we have no public nudity, no liquor sales at certain times, no slaves, nor beating animals needlessly, is for moral (i.e., religious) reasons. The only one on that list that was not a moral issue is seatbelts, but even that one is for moral reasons if we agree to it so that negligent people aren’t allowed to put their children into harms way, so even that could be argued to be a moral issue. Thus, my point still stands. As to the reasons to end early-term abortion, I’ve got moral ones and humanistic ones and I’ve written about them here. But I’m not conceding that I have to find non-moral reasons for it, we can’t even outlaw beating your own dog unless we’re allowed to use our community moral/religious values.

Honey, you don't even seem to know what your own definition of human personhood is, so maybe you shouldn't try to assume what mine is. You are a million miles off base from what I believe human personhood is, and you are once again arguing against nothing and nobody.

Also, I asked you to use "yes or no" for a reason. You do a lot of criticizing of someone else’s definition without offering your version of what you think society can use as an acceptable definition.


"You guys"? Who's "you guys"? Why do you insist on lumping all pro-choice people together? We don't agree all the time, and we have very different conceptions of life, personhood, and the extent of the right to choose. Until you understand that, you're not going to get anywhere in adult discussion on this issue. I’m not talking to all pro-choice advocates And when I said that, I was talking specifically to you, Graven and Cat. As to the adult discussion on this issue, I was curious if you could point some out, I haven’t seen much of that around here :)


Also, the growing physical entity isn't completely determined until it is dead, so it can't possibly be determined long before the day personhood begins. Unless you claim personhood begins at death, which would start us down a whole other theological debate. You need to learn more basic human genetics, physiology, and biology before you start making these wacky claims. You should try taking a more holistic look at life and existing, just for your own sake, nothing to do with this debate. Death might be one end of it, and ‘birth’ (in dispute in this thread when life begins but we can agree that birth happens and is recorded so I’m using that for this) as the other end of it ~ but you know what, for most of us there is a whole lot in-between that makes up the vast majority of it. When we think of ourselves, we think of the ME, the here and now and our past, not knowing our futures. But if you believe there is a God, then God is likely going to be able to see the complete you, the essence of “ME” when you think to yourself. God can see both ends and everything in between, all at the same moment and that constitutes the ME, in you. But even if you do not believe in God, the relativity of Time itself suggests the same thing. You exist on both ends of your existence, equally real on the ends and in the middle, nowhere more real than anywhere else. Only your perspective of your existence is limited to where you are at the moment, but it doesn’t make this anymore real than yesterday and no less real than tomorrow.

Maybe you would be so pessimistic about your own existence being defined only at death then eh?



Perhaps. But so what? What difference does that make? Some day we may be able to tell a person what her future children will look like 30 years before she conceives...we have no idea what our technology may one day accomplish. I don't see what bearing that has on any of this.

Potentiality and actuality are not equivalent. This is a basic concept that you need to deal with before you proced. Actually that’s not the same thing now is it? You can’t take only the egg and determine the genetics of what it will be now can you? But you can determine half of it. The fetus I used in my example is entirely complete already, it still needs health and nourishment to do what it wants to do (grow to healthy adult) but the blue print for what it can be is entirely in place.


America is a country designed to avoid tyranny of the majority. Some of the proudest moments in our history were when the majority's will was rejected; the end to slavery, equal rights for blacks, equal rights for women, desegregation of schools, interracial marriage, etc etc etc. Just because the majority of people like something doesn't make it right, true, or ethical. Actually, all of your examples are of the ‘majority’ telling the minority that they have to do something they did want to do. Sure there might have had a few states from issue to issue that objected to the national policy with a majority in that state, but the national consensus on all of those issues was ‘majority’ agreed with policy changes that they forced every state to do.



Actually, I'm not afraid in the slightest. It is possible that fundamentalists and radicals may hijack my government and take away human rights for a while, but if that happens I will simply leave and live in a country where my rights are respected. Of course, I don't think there is a chance in hell that an anti-abortion movement will succeed in the long term in America. I doubt abortion will ever be prohibited again, and if it is the prohibition will last only a handful of years. It would be better if we didn’t need to outlaw it. It would be better if all the children were wanted but that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime I think we could outlaw the ‘abortion-on-demand’ that you endorse, and if we could knock out 80% or more, that would be something anyway. Then we can reassess after that. But if you ran off, I think China respects the right to abortion pretty strongly, I don’t see it leaving there anytime soon, maybe you should start learning Mandarin Chinese now so you can quickly feel at home once you’re there?

Given that you and those on your "side" have shown yourselves to be ignorant of basic science, law, and ethics, I don't really see what there is to fear. You can't even define your own ideas...why should I worry about your ability to defend them? And you guys keep accusing me of making strawmen to knock down? Just because you don’t agree with my definitions of ideas doesn’t mean I haven’t defined sufficiently well.


And that would be fine by me. The right to abortion is ONLY about the woman's right to her own body; what happens to the fetus is totally irrelevant. So long as a woman is granted full right to her body (the same right granted to all born humans), I couldn't care less what happens to the fetus. I shouldn’t be at all surprised to hear you saying that should I?

Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
And even if it never becomes illegal, Doctors will progressively refuse to perform abortions.
Interesting claim. Too bad that history doesn't seem to back you up at all. But you keep telling yourself that. Actually, it’s already happening. Less and less new doctors are becoming abortionist and the old doctors are retiring without replacement. I didn’t make it up.


Again, the right to have a pregnancy ended has nothing to do with the fate of the fetus. If doctors can remove viable fetuses rather than aborting them, and cause no extra injury to the female in doing so, then both sides can be happy. You won't have "won" or "lost" in that situation, we'll simply have reached a point where the debate can fizzle away with both sides satisfied. Yes, it will be a great day. However, at the beginning there, you misspoke or misunderstand what is the legal right to abortion in America anyway. Go read it again if you don’t believe me, it has a LOT to do with the fate of the fetus. Non-viability as a way of sanctioning abortion was their reasoning, not mine, they said if it’s viable and everyone is healthy, you can’t abort it just because you want to.



You're right; a woman has the absolute right to end a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If the fetus is viable then I have no problem with it being removed intact, as long as that will not cause her any additional trauma, but she still has the right to end the pregnancy no matter what. Whether or not a fetus is alive or a human person is totally irrelevant to me. Based on what? What law? What right? What moral code? Why stop there? Why not just allow mothers to strap their kids in the back seat of the family sedan and sink it in the river? Why not just induce labor and drown it in the sink?

I think you are alone on that one, I haven’t seen anyone else here condone all and every possible abortion any women on a whim might have…



Actually, the odds of a fertilized egg becoming a human baby are less than 50%. I don't think that qualifies as "every reason in the world," since there is more reason to expect the embryo will never become a born human than there is to expect it will become a born human. I didn’t say fertilized egg, I said a fetus. I said a woman who’s taken a pregnancy test and it came back positive ~ that’s a far cry from me claiming anything about a fertilized egg. You can pick and choose and change the meaning of my words so that you can better attack them, but really, it doesn’t make your argument valid, it makes it silly.


Again, huh? Potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. If I go to the store and buy ingredients for some cookies, they aren't cookies when I'm at the checkout counter just because they will probably become cookies in the near future. No matter how determined I am to convert those ingredients into cookies, they won't taste like cookies if I eat them before the baking. That’s just funny. You’ve resorted to mentioning you biology knowledge several times, but apparently you don’t know the difference between “standing in line at the grocery store with supplies” and “cookies are already in the oven and the timer is already counting down.”

Why do so many people continue to insist that consenting to sex = consenting to have a child? That's like saying that choosing to drive a car means you consent to have your rib cage crushed in an accident and will not seek any medical help if that occurs. It's just such an absurd viewpoint that I can't wrap my head around it. I would have thought a biologist would have been able to figure that out, sorry to hear you’re having a problem wrapping your head around it.

What part are you curious about? If the scale to be used is the good of the community, as the judge of what is better and what is worse, then I can easily argue statistically that “shotgun” weddings and arranged marriages were MORE successful that what we have today. IF we use the scale of individual children growing up with two parents, the old system works community wise better than the new.

The idea of children growing up with two parents as a "nuclear family" is incredibly new. It only dates back to the '50's. Before that, children were not raised by two parents. They were raised by two parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, older siblings, cousins - often living in the same house or at least on the same property. You can espouse the idea of the "nuclear family" all you want - but it is a very new idea in the scheme of things.

Children need a variety of role-models. Simply having two parents is not enough. One parent who integrates his/her family, friends, etc. into the equation is much better than two parents mostly cut-off from the rest.

When I say I think men should propose to the mother if they have an unplanned pregnancy, I’m saying that as a community, we can request that he not only propose so that he can then become a bad father, who cheats on his wife and beats the kids.

One doesn't have to cheat on his wife and beat the kids to create a bad situation for the family. When there is tension between the parents - which there will be if they got married just because of kids and don't really care for each other - the children know it, and it affects their entire development.

I’m saying that as a community WE are responsible for how we behave. WE allow our friends to cheat on their wives, because we don’t tell them that they are shitheads for doing it. We allow our friends and neighbors to beat their kids, because we as a community don’t walk over there and kick his ass when he’s doing it to them. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, and right now, in America, we think ‘it’s none of our business,’ and we look the other way. Our entire community is ‘enabling’ the rotten behaviors to not just continue, but multiply by our example to our children.

Maybe you live in a really rotten part of America. I certainly don't see most people turning a blind eye on these things in my society.

It’s just like the pictures of guys arrested for hiring prostitutes are put in the newspapers now to embarrass them, except it doesn’t go far enough. Wife and child beaters, adulterers, dead-beat parents etc., should be put in there too.

I don't know about abusive people, but I know that dead-beat parents are already printed in the paper.

Are you saying that they take a person’s heart out while it is still beating? I don’t think so. I think they wait for a time of death to be determined and documented BEFORE they start taking out body parts. And that, invariably, means that not only is there no heart beat, but that resuscitating the person failed. If I am wrong, perhaps you will tell me which hospitals start taking your body organs out before your dead, that way we can avoid going to them…

Yes, they do take a person's organs while the organs are still alive, but not while the person is still alive. I don't think this is too hard to understand. When a person is declared brain-dead, they are dead. That does not mean that their heart has ceased beating or that they have ceased breathing - especially considering that they are most likely on machines to keep these processes going. Lack of heart-beat is not what determines death. Thus, no hospital takes your organs before you are dead, but every hospital takes the organs before the organs are dead. If they didn't, the organs would be useless.

Such as what? Gender?

Gender? Possibly. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes (so long as all receptors are working properly), but gender is likely affected by all sorts of factors.

Of course, if the woman is pregnant with fraternal twins, and one absorbs the other, you may end up with a person whose cells are half male and half female. If some cell division occurs improperly, you may end up with an embryo that started out as XY developing as XO - and ending up appearing as a female.

and you know how a pregnant woman can influence her baby’s traits before birth regardless of genetics,

There are all sorts of ways a woman can influence traits. Her diet, her level of activity, the stress she is under, her own hormone levels. This is not new information. Those of us in the biological community are well aware of it.

I’ll agree that not everything such as physical health and conditioning is genetics, – but the stuff I said, Hair color, eye color, ethnic traits, height and body type are all genetics.

Incorrect, they are influenced by genetics and can be altered well into development by epigentic changes. They are not, however, fully determined by genetics alone.

If epigenetic factors become involved, they can ‘change’ the outcome, but the blueprint of the body is laid by the genetics. Epigenetic changes can’t occur unless the genetics are already there, there is nothing to ‘alter’ if it were otherwise.

...which makes my point for me. Thank you. You could not take a test at the very beginning of pregnancy and predict all traits of the possible child.

Secondary point, I covered that anyway, by saying ‘healthy and nourished’ and non-molested,

Incorrect. That does not cover everything. Healthy and nourished could mean a lot of things. Do you claim to know the "optimal diet"? Do you claim that there even is one?

but you decided to ignore that and assume I didn’t know about epigenetic variances being able to change the tissues growing essence (like alligator eggs being mostly female at one temperature and mostly male if at a different tempeture during incubation).

Most epigenetic traits are much more random than that. It is a simple matter of what parts of the DNA get altered and what parts don't. Have you ever seen the cloned kitten? It's coloring is completely different from the cat it was cloned from? Why? The DNA was epigenetically altered in different ways - leading to different traits.

So, in other words, it has no bearing on my original statement/prediction that early pregnancy tests “will” be able to tell parents all those sorts of things about their fetuses in the future

Actually, it does. I have demonstrated very clearly that your imaginary wonder test would, at best, give a prediction of what might possibly happen under incredibly controlled circumstances that don't exist in the real world.

I’m sorry, I understand your point, but it’s not actually valid. The ONLY reason we have no public nudity, no liquor sales at certain times, no slaves, nor beating animals needlessly, is for moral (i.e., religious) reasons.

Incorrect. No public nudity has been explained as protection. It can be argued if it really does protect anyone - but that is the argument behind it.

The only liquor sale laws based on religion are the laws that it cannot be sold on Sunday, and these are clearly unconstitutional (and incredibly discriminatory - why can it be sold on Saturday?).

Slavery was not banned because of religion. LOL! In fact, it was the religious people claiming that it should not be banned, as it has roots in the Bible. It was banned because society came to the realization that every human being owns their own body - and no one else can claim ownership of it.

Anyone catch "The Cat-Tribe's" sig?

Ironic that he is so adamantly pro-abortion. :D

Wow. I never noticed that. I must now change my whole opinion. :rolleyes:

Pay attention, sparky:

1. Zygote-embryo-early fetus = person.

2. Born child = person.

3. Tens of thousands of living, breathing children die every day while the "pro-life" movement ignores them and focuses on clumps of cells.

Such is history. And hypocrisy.

But if you ran off, I think China respects the right to abortion pretty strongly,

Incorrect. China forces abortion upon people. This is not respecting rights. When you look at it, those who are pro-choice are just that - pro-choice. China does not allow choice.

And you guys keep accusing me of making strawmen to knock down? Just because you don’t agree with my definitions of ideas doesn’t mean I haven’t defined sufficiently well.

It has nothing to do with not disagreeing. Your points have been demonstrated again and again to be based on false premises.

I didn’t say fertilized egg, I said a fetus. I said a woman who’s taken a pregnancy test and it came back positive ~ that’s a far cry from me claiming anything about a fertilized egg. You can pick and choose and change the meaning of my words so that you can better attack them, but really, it doesn’t make your argument valid, it makes it silly.

Actually, there is no fetus until 8 weeks - after most abortions have been performed.

Am I to take this to mean that you have no problem with early term abortions -which is almost all abortions performed in this country?

Edit: Meanwhile, a pregnancy test comes up positive long before there is a fetus. Oh dear.

Wow. I never noticed that. I must now change my whole opinion. :rolleyes:

Pay attention, sparky:

1. Zygote-embryo-early fetus = person.

2. Born child = person.

3. Tens of thousands of living, breathing children die every day while the "pro-life" movement ignores them and focuses on clumps of cells.

Such is history. And hypocrisy.

Reminds me of what I taught my kids

* holds out left fist * "Gamete!"

* holds out right fist * "Gamete!"

* merges hands into a ball * "Zygote!"

*snip*
What part are you curious about? If the scale to be used is the good of the community, as the judge of what is better and what is worse, then I can easily argue statistically that “shotgun” weddings and arranged marriages were MORE successful that what we have today. IF we use the scale of individual children growing up with two parents, the old system works community wise better than the new.

You've already shown the ability to argue lots of things that are flatly untrue, so I'm sure you could make such an argument.

It would be utter bullshit, however.

When I say I think men should propose to the mother if they have an unplanned pregnancy, I’m saying that as a community, we can request that he not only propose so that he can then become a bad father, who cheats on his wife and beats the kids. I’m saying that as a community WE are responsible for how we behave. WE allow our friends to cheat on their wives, because we don’t tell them that they are shitheads for doing it. We allow our friends and neighbors to beat their kids, because we as a community don’t walk over there and kick his ass when he’s doing it to them. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, and right now, in America, we think ‘it’s none of our business,’ and we look the other way. Our entire community is ‘enabling’ the rotten behaviors to not just continue, but multiply by our example to our children.

We have a right to say no, I don’t want to live in a community with no rules anymore. You cheat on your wife and brag about it at the local bar? He should be shunned, no friends and an outcast. You beat your wife kids? You should be in jail, and if you are just abusive and a non-loving jerk to your family, your co-workers, neighbors, church and friends, the entire community, should kick yours figuratively or in actual if you don’t stop it.

It’s just like the pictures of guys arrested for hiring prostitutes are put in the newspapers now to embarrass them, except it doesn’t go far enough. Wife and child beaters, adulterers, dead-beat parents etc., should be put in there too. I don’t mean the paper per-se, but the way society agrees to behave. If my Son does it, I’ll kick his butt. If my brother does it, I’ll kick his. If I do it, they should all kick mine… Community peer pressure for the betterment of the whole society.

Pathetic.

Civilization has moved along, buckaroo.

You and the Puritan Misery Squad cannot hold witch trials and put people in the public stocks. (Which, btw, did not work. Have you seen the statistics for out-of-wedlock pregnancies among the Puritans? Shocking.)

We have laws and systems of justice. We also have liberty.

Your views show a fundamental hatred for the principles of this nation.

We do not and should not force people to get married.

We do not and should not act as vigilantes.

We have laws. If you commit domestic violence, you should be arrested and punished. If you know of someone who commits domestic violence, you should report them. You do not apply "peer pressure."

Your "community pressure" model is the type of thinking that let domestic violence and rape flourish. Keep things within the community meant keep things quiet.

And lumping adultery and prostitution in with domestic violence is simply silly.

Your medieval ideals have long been rejected by enlighted civilization. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Are you saying that they take a person’s heart out while it is still beating? I don’t think so. I think they wait for a time of death to be determined and documented BEFORE they start taking out body parts. And that, invariably, means that not only is there no heart beat, but that resuscitating the person failed. If I am wrong, perhaps you will tell me which hospitals start taking your body organs out before your dead, that way we can avoid going to them…

Nice bait-and-switch. You had raised the issue of brain death -- to which Dem responded. Now you are talking about the heart stopping.

Regardless, there is more than one way of being "dead" and many of your organs are still alive most of them.


So, in other words, it has no bearing on my original statement/prediction that early pregnancy tests “will” be able to tell parents all those sorts of things about their fetuses in the future ~ and if we still allow abortion on demand then, I can only imagine the horror of aborting only the babies that won’t be smart enough, or strong enough, or good looking enough to make us want them before they are even formed, health will not be the determining qualification anymore. All the rich people will have perfect kids and the poor people that can’t afford the tests, will have the sick, the normal and the ugly children… What a world that would be eh? Maybe we should just end abortion on demand now before we turn into a human race of cattle, or pure-bread horses and dogs, incapable of even breeding without artificial assistance and our papers of origin…

Ah. The Slippery Slope fallacy. How persuasive :rolleyes:


I’m sorry, I understand your point, but it’s not actually valid. The ONLY reason we have no public nudity, no liquor sales at certain times, no slaves, nor beating animals needlessly, is for moral (i.e., religious) reasons. The only one on that list that was not a moral issue is seatbelts, but even that one is for moral reasons if we agree to it so that negligent people aren’t allowed to put their children into harms way, so even that could be argued to be a moral issue. Thus, my point still stands. As to the reasons to end early-term abortion, I’ve got moral ones and humanistic ones and I’ve written about them here. But I’m not conceding that I have to find non-moral reasons for it, we can’t even outlaw beating your own dog unless we’re allowed to use our community moral/religious values.

Um.

1. Moral != religious.

2. "moral" as you use it here includes pragmatism, utilitarianism, etc. You essentially define everything as a "moral" argument -- making your "laws are based on morals" point a hollow truism.

3. Contrary to your assertion, you've yet to articulate a decent argument -- moral or otherwise -- against abortion.

Slavery was not banned because of religion. LOL! In fact, it was the religious people claiming that it should not be banned, as it has roots in the Bible. It was banned because society came to the realization that every human being owns their own body - and no one else can claim ownership of it.
Obviously you don't actually know very much about the politics and debates of the period to say what you just said. The hard-core religious zealots tried to start the war to end slavery before the federal government did, before the south seceded... The called it an abomination before the Lord. Like John Browns 1856 raid on Harper County. Or the supreme courts secular decision to allow it: 1857 Dred Scott Decision The United States Supreme Court decides, seven to two, that blacks can never be citizens and that Congress has no authority to outlaw slavery in any territory. Sounds more like the abortion situation today then most pro-choice people would like.[/quote]


The argument that you just made though, about the south saying the bible was a part of the pro-slavery’s defense is true, there were religious groups (southern of course) that did tried to make biblical arguments in the defense of slavery, but much like the pro-choice people try to twist the bible today to their advantage it didn’t work then either. Popular public opinion (when the whole country was weighed in the balance) at the time was that religion was against slavery. It's all in the history books, this one for example: http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7553.html

So which is it? Do you believe that people can disagree? Or do you believe that they all agree with you deep down and have to justify and make excuses?

I believe that people disagree, I'd be blind not to admit that, but I believe that disagreement to be born of a desire (perhaps an unconsious desire) to avoid responsibility for their behavior. The only other option is far less flattering...

I believe that people disagree, I'd be blind not to admit that, but I believe that disagreement to be born of a desire (perhaps an unconsious desire) to avoid responsibility for their behavior. The only other option is far less flattering...
But you also assume there is a supposed “responsibility” for their behavior that they agree with

If they don’t believe in that responsibility they can hardly consciously or unconsciously be trying to avoid it

Sorry if I confused.. I wasn't trying to bring rape into the debate, as such... but along with my testimony about this backwater I inhabit, it was evidence of a backwards way of thought. We are risking reverting to a less rationale age, and that scares me.

I cannot accept conception as the onset of life. It makes no sense. Sperm are alive, and ova are alive. They do not become any MORE alive in conception. Fully a third of all concepta drop straight through WITHOUT implantation... which seems fairly wasteful if conception was the start of life.

Also- conception isn't an 'instant', but a process... where, within the PROCESS of conception does the entity become a 'human life'? And why?

I can see a rationale for the start of brain function as the beginning of human life (rather than human living tissue) which is based upon the END point of life.

It is usually assumed that brain-death marks the end of the 'life' of a human body. It seems fair, then, that brain-commencement should mark the beginning, no?

Like I said, that is the second most viable definition of when human life begins IMO.

As for when specifically in the "conception" process I would say that life begins... I'd say that the point in time when sperm meets ova and the new double helix is formed is the point in time that a new human life comes into being.

I know that there are DNA mutations within human bodies as previously noted in this thread that bare some similar characteristics to a child at this stage of development, however, none of them when allowed to follow the course of nature will develop into a seperate full functioning human being with seperate brains. The newly conceived child will in most cases if not killed by an external source.

LOL.

Please put to any language in the Constitution that would support the view that a fertilized egg is entitled to constitutional rights.

The preamble works for me, that all human kind are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But you also assume there is a supposed “responsibility” for their behavior that they agree with

If they don’t believe in that responsibility they can hardly consciously or unconsciously be trying to avoid it

Actually, I believe the responsibility to be inate and to the best of my capacity to fathom it, objective reality, whether one believes in it or not.

Actually, I believe the responsibility to be inate and to the best of my capacity to fathom it, objective reality, whether one believes in it or not.
So basically “its there weather you think so or not” while you may think so hardly makes it truly objective to the rest of us

So basically “its there weather you think so or not” while you may think so hardly makes it truly objective to the rest of us


A reality I'm well aware of, which is why I made the comment about it potentially being an unconscious avoidance rather than an intentional one. And, yes, I am also aware that it would be unreasonable for anyone to just accept that my position on this issue is some how objective truth simply because I say so. This is one of the reasons I believe that God takes into account each individual's life experience and the knowledge that He has revealed to and convicted them of when judging. Hence, I believe that someone who commits an abortion/murder, can still be in Heaven, possibly even if they haven't repented of said murder. Of course, for someone like me who knows it to be wrong, to do so unrepentantly would be endanger my eternal destiny.

A reality I'm well aware of, which is why I made the comment about it potentially being an unconscious avoidance rather than an intentional one. And, yes, I am also aware that it would be unreasonable for anyone to just accept that my position on this issue is some how objective truth simply because I say so. This is one of the reasons I believe that God takes into account each individual's life experience and the knowledge that He has revealed to and convicted them of when judging. Hence, I believe that someone who commits an abortion/murder, can still be in Heaven, possibly even if they haven't repented of said murder. Of course, for someone like me who knows it to be wrong, to do so unrepentantly would be endanger my eternal destiny.
And that’s why I don’t usually have a contention with your view of your religion … I may not be able to believe in it but defiantly seems like behavior much more deserving of “worship” in a diety then “too bad your goin to hell”

And that’s why I don’t usually have a contention with your view of your religion … I may not be able to believe in it but defiantly seems like behavior much more deserving of “worship” in a diety then “too bad your goin to hell”

You just confused me... Did you mean "definitely" or "defiantly"? The last statement comes across very differently,but even then I'm not sure exactly what you are saying... Please clarify. :)

I believe that people disagree, I'd be blind not to admit that, but I believe that disagreement to be born of a desire (perhaps an unconsious desire) to avoid responsibility for their behavior. The only other option is far less flattering...

You are contradicting yourself. When you say that someone has a desire to avoid responsibility and that is why they disagree - you are actually saying that they agree with you and just don't like it.

But thank you for proving, once and for all, that you don't actually think it is possible that a rational person could disagree with you.

You are contradicting yourself. When you say that someone has a desire to avoid responsibility and that is why they disagree - you are actually saying that they agree with you and just don't like it.

But thank you for proving, once and for all, that you don't actually think it is possible that a rational person could disagree with you.
I think he was trying to get at they could disagree but they would be still “wrong”
(I think)

I think he was trying to get at they could disagree but they would be still “wrong”
(I think)

If that is what he meant, then he should say that.

What he has actually said, almost completely consistently, is that they actually agree deep down - but are simply making excuses. He is stating that everyone knows he is right, but many simply do not want to do what is right.

As I pointed out before, there is a large difference between "I believe you are wrong" and "You know I am right and you are just making excuses to justify your actions."

I think he was trying to get at they could disagree but they would be still “wrong”
(I think)

Pretty close. Thanks for the help.

One of the other problems is that Dem seems to be interpreting "desire" as only a consious/intentional action, which is not how I intended for it to be interpreted...

Pretty close. Thanks for the help.

One of the other problems is that Dem seems to be interpreting "desire" as only a consious/intentional action, which is not how I intended for it to be interpreted...

Not in the least. If someone is justifying something as an unconscious action - you are imply that they actually do know, deep down, that you are right.

And, yes, I am also aware that it would be unreasonable for anyone to just accept that my position on this issue is some how objective truth simply because I say so.

And yet you seek to force it upon people.

Why is that, exactly?

Looks like another contradiction to me.

If that is what he meant, then he should say that.

What he has actually said, almost completely consistently, is that they actually agree deep down - but are simply making excuses. He is stating that everyone knows he is right, but many simply do not want to do what is right.

As I pointed out before, there is a large difference between "I believe you are wrong" and "You know I am right and you are just making excuses to justify your actions."

You're missing the other possibility, that people disagree because they don't see or recognize something that is a reality and that if they saw said reality they would agree. I'm guessing that you believe something similar about my disbelief in evolution, that if I some how saw enough evidence I would believe it to be reality, but I'm putting words in your mouth and that may not be the case. If I have misjudged, I apologize.

And yet you seek to force it upon people.

Why is that, exactly?

Looks like another contradiction to me.

Just like we do for other forms of murder. Just because a Jihadist thinks it okay to murder us sinful American's, doesn't mean we won't pass laws to protect us.

You're missing the other possibility, that people disagree because they don't see or recognize something that is a reality and that if they saw said reality they would agree. I'm guessing that you believe something similar about my disbelief in evolution, that if I some how saw enough evidence I would believe it to be reality, but I'm putting words in your mouth and that may not be the case. If I have misjudged, I apologize.

You certainly have. I actually admit my fallibility. I believe things to be true - but recognize that they just might not be and that others might be right.

For that reason, I do not think that everyone, shown all the evidence, would necessarily accept evolutionary theory. A rational person can very well disagree. All I have ever said is that Creationism is not science, as it is not.

Just like we do for other forms of murder. Just because a Jihadist thinks it okay to murder us sinful American's, doesn't mean we won't pass laws to protect us.

We do not make laws against murder because a subset of people have religious beliefs against it. We ban murder because we can objectively demonstrate that human persons are losing their lives otherwise. We pass laws to protect those that can be objectively demonstrated to be human persons.

Our reasoning behind putting the value of a human person upon an embryo is personal - it is a personal religious decision. That cannot be forced upon others.

PR,

Please understand it is not your point or your religion I am arguing with. It is the idea you seem to espouse that you are right, everyone knows it, and thus you are justified in forcing it upon others. You believe that you get guidance from God. I believe the same thing. On some issues, we disagree. What does that mean? Is God giving us different signals? I think not. What it means is that you and I are fallible. We get signals mixed up.

On things where we disagree, one of us (or even both of us) must be getting the message wrong. Yet we both adamantly believe that the message is coming from God. From an objective viewpoint, what makes your version of the message better or more correct than mine? What measuring stick can we use to determine this? In the end, there is no measuring stick, as we are both relying on personal experience - and others cannot measure that.

The difference between us is that I realize this fact. I am well aware that I have almost definitely gotten some parts of it wrong. I recognize that I can learn much from those who seem to disagree with me. And, for that reason, I would never try to force my religious views upon others. The value I place upon an embryo is subjective - it is religious - it is based on my own personal view of God. This is something I cannot push upon others. The idea that a viable fetus is a human life, however, is fairly objective. It meets the biological requirements to be deemed as such. Thus, I see no problem with the laws banning abortion after that point - or even considering the murder of a pregnant woman at that point as a double murder.

The preamble works for me, that all human kind are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just as I thought: you know not of what you speak.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution says no such thing. It reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry, charlie.

Pathetic.

Civilization has moved along, buckaroo.

You and the Puritan Misery Squad cannot hold witch trials and put people in the public stocks. (Which, btw, did not work. Have you seen the statistics for out-of-wedlock pregnancies among the Puritans? Shocking.) Have you? Let’s see them here then.

Then we’ll compare those to today’s census and pregnancy rates, perhaps you have a point… Oh wait, you probably just read The Scarlet Letter once when you were in high school and so now you think you’re an expert on the subject…



We have laws and systems of justice. We also have liberty.

Your views show a fundamental hatred for the principles of this nation. Wow, that makes a lot of sense since even Deist forefathers thought this form of government was only going to work if it was run in a moral self governing society… Try reading some actual history books instead of just spewing off stuff you think to be true.

We do not and should not force people to get married. Why? I know we do not, but why not? You have some moral code you haven’t revealed yet? But actually, I never said force, I said “He should ask” then said what he should do if they can’t or if she won’t or doesn’t want to…

We do not and should not act as vigilantes. Since when is neighborhood crime watch programs a bad idea? Or, do you mean, we shouldn’t go out and lynch people that’s it huh? That’s not what I said though is it? You just kinda assumed that’s where it might end up? You kind of used that slippery slope process there, that thing you are always saying I shouldn’t use, huh?


We have laws. If you commit domestic violence, you should be arrested and punished. If you know of someone who commits domestic violence, you should report them. You do not apply "peer pressure." You and I agree, finally. At least about the part of them being arrested. Of course, if he’s beating up my sister who happens to be his wife, there’s going to be a little peer-pressure involved too, I assure you of that.


Your "community pressure" model is the type of thinking that let domestic violence and rape flourish. Keep things within the community meant keep things quiet. Really, and here I though Hillary Clinton wrote a book about something like that, It Takes a Village. Silly me, see if I ever listen to a democrat for ideas again!!! That stupid idea of everyone working together for the common good, what must I have been thinking, I’m sure glad you showed me the error of my ways.


And lumping adultery and prostitution in with domestic violence is simply silly. Why? If you did any one of those things wouldn’t you be a bad husband/spouse, and wasn’t that the topic?

Your medieval ideals have long been rejected by enlighted civilization. Good riddance to bad rubbish. You call this enlightened society? Hmmm, interesting concept, somehow I don’t buy it though.

Just as I thought: you know not of what you speak.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution says no such thing. It reads:


Jeez man, he did say preamble but he didn't say constitution. And is in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

Jeez man, he did say preamble but he didn't say constitution. And is in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

Jeez man, work on your reading comprehension.

He had insisted that the Constitution guaranteed a rights at conception. He was wrong.

As for the Declaration, guess what? (a) It is isn't the Constitution; (b) It is of little or no legal significance; (c) That is not from its Preamble either; and (d) it does not say all human beings have a right to life from conception.

So, you are both still wrong.

But feel free to provide more of that cutting legal analysis you warned us about.

Jeez man, work on your reading comprehension.

He had insisted that the Constitution guaranteed a rights at conception. He was wrong.

As for the Declaration, guess what? (a) It is isn't the Constitution; (b) It is of little or no legal significance; (c) That is not from its Preamble either; and (d) it does not say all human beings have a right to life from conception.

So, you are both still wrong.

But feel free to provide more of that cutting legal analysis you warned us about.


I found this:
The preamble works for me, that all human kind are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


So nah, I don't see him saying what you say he said, perhaps I'm missing a post somewhere:


What is it with trivial technicalities instead of debating his ideas anyway? You know what he meant by what he expressed?

Have you? Let’s see them here then.

Then we’ll compare those to today’s census and pregnancy rates, perhaps you have a point… Oh wait, you probably just read The Scarlet Letter once when you were in high school and so now you think you’re an expert on the subject…

Just because you get most of your views from a work of fiction does not mean the same for the rest of us.

I do have stats in a book. A history book. I will look for a digital analog.

But you answered my question: no, you hae never looked at those statistics.


Wow, that makes a lot of sense since even Deist forefathers thought this form of government was only going to work if it was run in a moral self governing society… Try reading some actual history books instead of just spewing off stuff you think to be true.

LOL.

Utter bullshit. And you continue to confuse "moral" with your own Puritan code.

Freedom, equality, and rights are moral concepts, sparky.

And I've studied American history -- particularly American political thought rather thoroughly. We are not all as poorly informed as you.

Why? I know we do not, but why not? You have some moral code you haven’t revealed yet? But actually, I never said force, I said “He should ask” then said what he should do if they can’t or if she won’t or doesn’t want to…

There is a principle you should look up: liberty.

Also, compelled, forced, or pressured marriages are a bad idea.

Since when is neighborhood crime watch programs a bad idea? Or, do you mean, we shouldn’t go out and lynch people that’s it huh? That’s not what I said though is it? You just kinda assumed that’s where it might end up? You kind of used that slippery slope process there, that thing you are always saying I shouldn’t use, huh?

No slippery slope. I took what you said at face value. It was asinine itself.

You and I agree, finally. At least about the part of them being arrested. Of course, if he’s beating up my sister who happens to be his wife, there’s going to be a little peer-pressure involved too, I assure you of that.

If you expect someone to be impressed by your threats of violence, you are sadly mistaken.

Really, and here I though Hillary Clinton wrote a book about something like that, It Takes a Village. Silly me, see if I ever listen to a democrat for ideas again!!! That stupid idea of everyone working together for the common good, what must I have been thinking, I’m sure glad you showed me the error of my ways.

Silly you. You've never read the book nor have the slightest clue what it says.

Pretending otherwise is lying. That makes God sad.

Why? If you did any one of those things wouldn’t you be a bad husband/spouse, and wasn’t that the topic?

No. Prostitution and adultery do not necessarily make one a bad parent or a bad spouse. Nor do they fit among the list of evils for which one should be punished.

You call this enlightened society? Hmmm, interesting concept, somehow I don’t buy it though.

I know you seem to think the peak of enlightment was the 1st century. Sorry, but we've made a bit of progress since then.

In fact, you have earlier argued we were making progress.

I found this:

So nah, I don't see him saying what you say he said, perhaps I'm missing a post somewhere:

You are missing several posts. Methinks deliberately. I won't go back through the several posts where Personal responsibilit tried to argue that abortion was murder and Roe v. Wade was wrong because an unborn child had Constitutional rights at conception.

I will point to the most relevant two posts:

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.

LOL.

Please put to any language in the Constitution that would support the view that a fertilized egg is entitled to constitutional rights.

And here is the one that you only partially quoted:


LOL.

Please point to any language in the Constitution that would support the view that a fertilized egg is entitled to constitutional rights.

The preamble works for me, that all human kind are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, yes, PR was referring to the Constitution. But he was wrong.

Satisfied? Or do you wish to continue to make yourself look silly.


What is it with trivial technicalities instead of debating his ideas anyway? You know what he meant by what he expressed?

Why is it that whenever you or PR are proven wrong, you call it a "trivial" point?

PR's argument was that the Constitution grants rights at the point of conception. I challenged him to provide any language in the Constitution supporting that position. He failed. He is wrong.

And, as I explained, the Declaration does not help his argument.

remind me to NEVER piss cat tribe off :) ;)

Just because you get most of your views from a work of fiction does not mean the same for the rest of us.

I do have stats in a book. A history book. I will look for a digital analog.

But you answered my question: no, you hae never looked at those statistics. Nope, never looked at the statistics of unwed child-bearing in the Puritan society. I do know something about the Puritans, they weren’t Quakers or Amish, they had a wild side to them in comparison, but I’ll still bet that in comparison to today, they handled parenthood and raising children, even when unplanned, better than we do.



LOL.

Utter bullshit. And you continue to confuse "moral" with your own Puritan code.

Freedom, equality, and rights are moral concepts, sparky.

And I've studied American history -- particularly American political thought rather thoroughly. We are not all as poorly informed as you.

There is a principle you should look up: liberty. So, what point of mine did you dispute here? Did I misspeak about the forefathers and moral code or did you just think that mine and theirs is different therefore they can’t have the same outcome? You used a lot of words to say, well, really, nothing.

And since you’ve called me a Puritan as an insult, I’ll take the badge, but I think it’s more a badge of honor:

This stereotypical view is almost wholly incorrect. Contrary to much popular thinking, the Puritans were not sexual prudes. Although they strongly condemned sexual relations outside of marriage--levying fines or even whipping those who fornicated, committed adultery or sodomy, or bore children outside of wedlock--they attached a high value to the marital tie. Nor did Puritans abstain from alcohol; even though they objected to drunkenness, they did not believe alcohol as sinful in itself.

They were not opposed to artistic beauty; although they were suspicious of the theater and the visual arts, the Puritans valued poetry. Indeed, John Milton (1603-1674), one of England's greatest poets, was a Puritan. Even the association of the Puritans with drab colors is wrong. They especially liked the colors red and blue.
Although the Puritans wanted to reform the world to conform to God's law, they did not set up a church-run state. Even though they believed that the primary purpose of government was to punish breaches of God's laws, few people were as committed as the Puritans to the separation of church and state. Not only did they reject the idea of establishing a system of church courts, they also forbade ministers from holding public office.

Perhaps most strikingly, the Puritans in Massachusetts held annual elections and extended the right to vote and hold office to all "freemen." Although this term was originally restricted to church members, it meant that a much larger proportion of the adult male population could vote in Massachusetts than in England itself (roughly 55 percent, compared to about 33 percent in England).
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=674

In some ways, they have nothing to be ashamed about. (p.s., but I still have no idea where I could get some accurate birth records of that era, still hoping you can prvide us with some? (And source please)


Then in regards to forefathers:
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, ~ while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens, that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government.






Also, compelled, forced, or pressured marriages are a bad idea. Why? Proof or thesis, can’t just say… “not good cause I said so,” there’s not even a rational reason behind it.

No slippery slope. I took what you said at face value. It was asinine itself. I never said a word about vigilante groups, you did. Slippery slope dude, I said peer pressure on people you know…

If you expect someone to be impressed by your threats of violence, you are sadly mistaken. No threat nor attempt at impressing anyone, just pointing out where peer-pressure to protect a loved one might not be such a crime like you made it out to be.

Silly you. You've never read the book nor have the slightest clue what it says. Pretending otherwise is lying. That makes God sad. What? Are you denying the books exists? My bust, I thought you were saying God didn’t exist.

No. Prostitution and adultery do not necessarily make one a bad parent or a bad spouse. Nor do they fit among the list of evils for which one should be punished. Hmmm, wow, I don’t know what kind of marriage you are involved in, but I don’t think extramarital physical relationship belong in a marriage, ~ maybe I’m starting to understand why you need abortion around as an option… But really, legalizing prostitution and looking the other way so adultrous people can freely have punishment free extra marital affairs was not the topic here. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint though, that’s quite interesting.

I know you seem to think the peak of enlightment was the 1st century. Sorry, but we've made a bit of progress since then.

In fact, you have earlier argued we were making progress. Yup, I think the first and second century Christian writings are the closest to ‘natural’ Christianity as we are going to find. Unpolluted by Empire, not dogmatic yet, I would carry that all the way up until about 450 C.E., progressively risky, until the council of Nicea anyway.

However, Christian writings are not in themselves an enlightenment age. I do not know of any enlightened age, but I believe different ages all have good and bad in them, including this one. But you dismiss everyone else, every other age, as if Americans and Europeans today are tenlightened ones. I’d argue that in some ways, this age can’t even tie their own shoes yet when it comes to enlightenment in the spiritual world nor the appreciation of life itself.

You are missing several posts. Methinks deliberately No, I wouldn’t do it deliberately. I understand why you might think so, but no.



Why is it that whenever you or PR are proven wrong, you call it a "trivial" point?

PR's argument was that the Constitution grants rights at the point of conception. I challenged him to provide any language in the Constitution supporting that position. He failed. He is wrong.

And, as I explained, the Declaration does not help his argument. Because it is a trivial point, and still is. He misspoke about where his reference was coming from, and that, in itself, did not change his view. As if everyone else doesn’t do that from time to time and you act like his whole argument is entirely invalid when that bit was only a small part of it.

As a matter of fact, look at the two big posts of yours I had to respond to, there’s not much in them. There is nothing but unsubstantiated slander against puritans and what? A few snide remarks here and there, a couple of jabs at who knows what about history without actually saying anything about history, only sharing your bad impression of it with us…

You certainly have. I actually admit my fallibility. I believe things to be true - but recognize that they just might not be and that others might be right.

For that reason, I do not think that everyone, shown all the evidence, would necessarily accept evolutionary theory. A rational person can very well disagree. All I have ever said is that Creationism is not science, as it is not.



We do not make laws against murder because a subset of people have religious beliefs against it. We ban murder because we can objectively demonstrate that human persons are losing their lives otherwise. We pass laws to protect those that can be objectively demonstrated to be human persons.

Our reasoning behind putting the value of a human person upon an embryo is personal - it is a personal religious decision. That cannot be forced upon others.

Not any more objective or personal or religious a decision than the decision, correct decision I might add, that people of races not Caucasian are not sub-human or that an infant who is incapable of self-sustanance is not sub-human. It is just an arbitrary line based on current human belief structures no matter where you draw it. I prefer to draw it on the basis of my understanding of divine inspiration, you prefer to draw it on the basis of current interpretation of scientific data, neither of which is infallible.

PR,

Please understand it is not your point or your religion I am arguing with. It is the idea you seem to espouse that you are right, everyone knows it, and thus you are justified in forcing it upon others. You believe that you get guidance from God. I believe the same thing. On some issues, we disagree. What does that mean? Is God giving us different signals? I think not. What it means is that you and I are fallible. We get signals mixed up.

On things where we disagree, one of us (or even both of us) must be getting the message wrong. Yet we both adamantly believe that the message is coming from God. From an objective viewpoint, what makes your version of the message better or more correct than mine? What measuring stick can we use to determine this? In the end, there is no measuring stick, as we are both relying on personal experience - and others cannot measure that.

The difference between us is that I realize this fact. I am well aware that I have almost definitely gotten some parts of it wrong. I recognize that I can learn much from those who seem to disagree with me. And, for that reason, I would never try to force my religious views upon others. The value I place upon an embryo is subjective - it is religious - it is based on my own personal view of God. This is something I cannot push upon others. The idea that a viable fetus is a human life, however, is fairly objective. It meets the biological requirements to be deemed as such. Thus, I see no problem with the laws banning abortion after that point - or even considering the murder of a pregnant woman at that point as a double murder.

Your implication that I don't recognize the possibility that I am wrong is inaccurate. The difference is that I am willing to act on the basis of my convictions, particularly when it comes to the protection of human life and the issue of when that occurs, conception or viability, is at best arbitrary, particularly in the case of viability as it is a function of technology rather than a developmental stage, which is why I think, G_n_I's position on brain activity makes far more sense than viability. The legal action I am willing to take is no different than stopping any other form of stopping murder, IMO.

Just as I thought: you know not of what you speak.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution says no such thing. It reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry, charlie.

You're correct, I apologize for getting my historical documents confused. I suppose the Declaration isn't law.

Some people don't believe you can possibly follow your own moral code. If you aren't trying to force it upon others, you must not really believe it ot be correct, right? If you can't make everyone else agree, you must be wrong!

I guess these people would have had problems if they had ever come face-to-face with Jesus - who seemed quite willing to let others do as they pleased... "render unto Caesar" indeed.

I guess these people would have had problems if they had ever come face-to-face with Jesus - who seemed quite willing to let others do as they pleased... "render unto Caesar" indeed.
isn't that 'render unto caesar' line regarding tax? (stubborn refusal to read all of thread). And Jesus willing to do what? temple, tables? that was a good show.

Not any more objective or personal or religious a decision than the decision, correct decision I might add, that people of races not Caucasian are not sub-human or that an infant who is incapable of self-sustanance is not sub-human.

Incorrect. Those things can be demonstrated with objective data that anyone can see and test for themselves.

Divine inspiration cannot.

Your implication that I don't recognize the possibility that I am wrong is inaccurate.

Inocorrect. It is you who have implicted that you don't recognize this possibility. Every time you say someone is simply trying to justify murder (consciously or subconsciously), you are stating that they cannot possibly actually disagree with you - as you are correct and they know it.

The legal action I am willing to take is no different than stopping any other form of stopping murder, IMO.

Except, of course, for the fact that you can show undeniable evidence that murder is murder, while you cannot produce undeniable evidence that abortion is. In fact, all you have is "I think it is so."

IF by environment you mean ‘exercise and full nourishment’ is required for you to be all that you ‘can’ be, than I agree. If you mean that we can substantially change our body type via environment, I disagree. However, I think we agree more than not on this part…



What part are you curious about? If the scale to be used is the good of the community, as the judge of what is better and what is worse, then I can easily argue statistically that “shotgun” weddings and arranged marriages were MORE successful that what we have today. IF we use the scale of individual children growing up with two parents, the old system works community wise better than the new.

However, several of the people here want to point out that having one good parent is better than having one good and one evil monster. Sure, I can agree with that. But I can equally say, how many monsters are there really? And in my point of view, they are a different issue entirely. They should be removed from the community with or without children.

When I say I think men should propose to the mother if they have an unplanned pregnancy, I’m saying that as a community, we can request that he not only propose so that he can then become a bad father, who cheats on his wife and beats the kids. I’m saying that as a community WE are responsible for how we behave. WE allow our friends to cheat on their wives, because we don’t tell them that they are shitheads for doing it. We allow our friends and neighbors to beat their kids, because we as a community don’t walk over there and kick his ass when he’s doing it to them. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, and right now, in America, we think ‘it’s none of our business,’ and we look the other way. Our entire community is ‘enabling’ the rotten behaviors to not just continue, but multiply by our example to our children.

We have a right to say no, I don’t want to live in a community with no rules anymore. You cheat on your wife and brag about it at the local bar? He should be shunned, no friends and an outcast. You beat your wife kids? You should be in jail, and if you are just abusive and a non-loving jerk to your family, your co-workers, neighbors, church and friends, the entire community, should kick yours figuratively or in actual if you don’t stop it.

It’s just like the pictures of guys arrested for hiring prostitutes are put in the newspapers now to embarrass them, except it doesn’t go far enough. Wife and child beaters, adulterers, dead-beat parents etc., should be put in there too. I don’t mean the paper per-se, but the way society agrees to behave. If my Son does it, I’ll kick his butt. If my brother does it, I’ll kick his. If I do it, they should all kick mine… Community peer pressure for the betterment of the whole society.

Welcome to Ph33rdom's vigilante future?

Where YOUR morality gets to decide who is publically shamed or assaulted?

I think I'll stay away, thanks all the same.

Although the Puritans wanted to reform the world to conform to God's law, they did not set up a church-run state. Even though they believed that the primary purpose of government was to punish breaches of God's laws, few people were as committed as the Puritans to the separation of church and state. Not only did they reject the idea of establishing a system of church courts, they also forbade ministers from holding public office.

Too bad you obviously don't agree with them here.

I never said a word about vigilante groups, you did. Slippery slope dude, I said peer pressure on people you know…

Yes, and your form of "peer pressure" was "kicking their ass". I'm pretty sure that would fall under vigilante activity.

No threat

See above.

Yup, I think the first and second century Christian writings are the closest to ‘natural’ Christianity as we are going to find.

And you find huge disagreements on most things. You have only quoted the authors that eventually informed the dogmatic Catholic church - there is much more out there.

Like I said, that is the second most viable definition of when human life begins IMO.


But, what SUPPORTS your reasoning? My reasoning has been clearly supported by a scientifically verifiable measure... how does yours correspond?


As for when specifically in the "conception" process I would say that life begins... I'd say that the point in time when sperm meets ova and the new double helix is formed is the point in time that a new human life comes into being.


You've done it again, my friend... there IS no point at which "sperm meets ova and the new double helix is formed"... this is just plain bad science.

The TWO events you describe are separated by something like an entire day... so NOW when (in the conception PROCESS) do you argue as the start of life?


I know that there are DNA mutations within human bodies as previously noted in this thread that bare some similar characteristics to a child at this stage of development, however, none of them when allowed to follow the course of nature will develop into a seperate full functioning human being with seperate brains. The newly conceived child will in most cases if not killed by an external source.

Not true. If you remove the foetus from the host, even without killing it, it will cease to function in fairly short order.

You are arguing special rules for ONE set of cells, while simultaneously admitting that 'unique DNA' is insufficient evidence to do so.

You've done it again, my friend... there IS no point at which "sperm meets ova and the new double helix is formed"... this is just plain bad science.

bad science.. did anyone else just think of Brass Eye? no? just me then

Incorrect. Those things can be demonstrated with objective data that anyone can see and test for themselves.

Divine inspiration cannot.



Inocorrect. It is you who have implicted that you don't recognize this possibility. Every time you say someone is simply trying to justify murder (consciously or subconsciously), you are stating that they cannot possibly actually disagree with you - as you are correct and they know it.



Except, of course, for the fact that you can show undeniable evidence that murder is murder, while you cannot produce undeniable evidence that abortion is. In fact, all you have is "I think it is so."

Yes, objective data suggests that in biological terms life is occuring when sperm meets egg. The only real argument, without redefining the word life, is whether or not it is human.

I have stated repeatedly that people can disagree, just that I don't believe they would were complete knowledge of this subject revealed to them (again, not saying that I can be 100% certain that I have it either). I'm not saying they know I'm right or even that they know what is right, they could honestly be deceived or self-decieved and actually believe something different.

Murder is defined as taking a human life. You can argue that an embryo isn't human if you want to because it doesn't have brain activity, but it is life and I'd argue that it, on the basis of its DNA, it is human.

isn't that 'render unto caesar' line regarding tax? (stubborn refusal to read all of thread). And Jesus willing to do what? temple, tables? that was a good show.

Yes, Jesus was talking tax - but he doesn't limit it to tax... he is, in fact, somewhat deliberately open-ended about the whole thing.

He could have said something about taxes specifically, but he approaches it with a much more generic manner... "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's".... carefully modulated so as NOT to merely include taxes, it would seem.

A direct parallel is immediately visible to government... and not inconstant with what Jesus teaches... it certainly seems that Jesus respected the separation of church and state.

Of course, another way of looking at it is, "each to their own".... effectively... he is saying Caesar can have what he wants, and the godly should stick to what they want... yet again, preaching separation... rather than condemnation.

Regarding the moneychangers in the temple.... one could argue he was just putting his 'house' in order?

It's one of the instances where the character normally described as pacifistic, takes on a vengeful, even violent, aspect.

You could argue it was his godly side, being affronted beyond temptation... you COULD argue it was his human (and thus fallible) side.

Either way, it was obviously a very special exception... it actually kind of fits with the whole 'render unto God' part, actually... those merchants were in the house of 'god', but they were doing ANYTHING BUT 'rendering unto 'god''.

But, what SUPPORTS your reasoning? My reasoning has been clearly supported by a scientifically verifiable measure... how does yours correspond?



You've done it again, my friend... there IS no point at which "sperm meets ova and the new double helix is formed"... this is just plain bad science.

The TWO events you describe are separated by something like an entire day... so NOW when (in the conception PROCESS) do you argue as the start of life?



Not true. If you remove the foetus from the host, even without killing it, it will cease to function in fairly short order.

You are arguing special rules for ONE set of cells, while simultaneously admitting that 'unique DNA' is insufficient evidence to do so.

The activities of a living cell are occuring when the two meet. Yes, it takes a day or so for the DNA to form, so IMO, when the DNA of the new cell is complete, it is a human cell, it is a living cell. I call that human life.

You are correct that it can't be removed from it's host without dying, at least with current technology. However, that is not the natural course of child development. Arguing that it has to be able to sustain itself independent of other human supports would mean that half the adult population of the United State probably isn't aren't human lives either as they wouldn't be able to meet there basic necessities without the aid of other humans.

Yes, Jesus was talking tax - but he doesn't limit it to tax... he is, in fact, somewhat deliberately open-ended about the whole thing.

He could have said something about taxes specifically, but he approaches it with a much more generic manner... "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's".... carefully modulated so as NOT to merely include taxes, it would seem.

A direct parallel is immediately visible to government... and not inconstant with what Jesus teaches... it certainly seems that Jesus respected the separation of church and state.

Of course, another way of looking at it is, "each to their own".... effectively... he is saying Caesar can have what he wants, and the godly should stick to what they want... yet again, preaching separation... rather than condemnation.

Regarding the moneychangers in the temple.... one could argue he was just putting his 'house' in order?

It's one of the instances where the character normally described as pacifistic, takes on a vengeful, even violent, aspect.

You could argue it was his godly side, being affronted beyond temptation... you COULD argue it was his human (and thus fallible) side.

Either way, it was obviously a very special exception... it actually kind of fits with the whole 'render unto God' part, actually... those merchants were in the house of 'god', but they were doing ANYTHING BUT 'rendering unto 'god''.

The problem with the rending unto Caesar argument here, G_n_I is that your forgetting the rest of the sentence... render to God that which is God's. Human life is His by both right of Creation and Redemption. To willfully take a human life is murder, which is both illegal from a sociatal and moral perspective.

The activities of a living cell are occuring when the two meet. Yes, it takes a day or so for the DNA to form, so IMO, when the DNA of the new cell is complete, it is a human cell, it is a living cell. I call that human life.

You are correct that it can't be removed from it's host without dying, at least with current technology. However, that is not the natural course of child development. Arguing that it has to be able to sustain itself independent of other human supports would mean that half the adult population of the United State probably isn't aren't human lives either as they wouldn't be able to meet there basic necessities without the aid of other humans.

I am curious as to why 'god' cannot imbue a 'cell' with a soul until the DNA is completely merged. Did each seed contain half of a soul?

Anyway - ignoring souls - it has already been ONE cell for most of that duration... just one cell with a divided core... why do you chose the completion of the core to be the point at which the cell becomes 'human'?

Regarding the 'natural course' of child development... a full third of all concepta drop straight through... as a matter of course. This is NOT including complications, etc. So - even before the implantation stage - the 'natural course' of development is to kill 33% of the cells.

And, of course, if there is any irritation of the uterus, this fatality rate is drastically increased (which is HOW IUDs work) - which is still 'natural' (it IS a body response to irritated membranes).

I seem to recall hearing that, all things considered, less than 50% of all concepta ever make it all the way to baby-born... ignoring abortion.

By THAT token, allowing the conceptus to remain in the uterus is 'unnatural'.

'Natural' isn't really a good place for you to be arguing, anyway. 'Natural' reproduction is whenever the need arises, and has nothing to do with 'relationships', 'marriage', 'family', or any of the other hundreds of artificial constructs which we put around the act.

If we are talking 'natural' reproduction, then there is no such thing as monogamy...

Yes, objective data suggests that in biological terms life is occuring when sperm meets egg. The only real argument, without redefining the word life, is whether or not it is human.

Incorrect. Biology has a definition of an organism - one which a zygote does not meet.

That, however, is neither here nor there.

There is nothing but potential to separate a zygote from a skin cell. Both are alive - both have human DNA - both are dividing. Whether or not we place value on the potential is a subjective decision.

I have stated repeatedly that people can disagree, just that I don't believe they would were complete knowledge of this subject revealed to them (again, not saying that I can be 100% certain that I have it either).

That is a very different statement from what you actually said, which is that they are simply trying to justify their actions.

I'm not saying they know I'm right or even that they know what is right, they could honestly be deceived or self-decieved and actually believe something different.

In which case there is no justification occurring.

Murder is defined as taking a human life. You can argue that an embryo isn't human if you want to because it doesn't have brain activity, but it is life and I'd argue that it, on the basis of its DNA, it is human.

By that definition, you commit murder when you get a paper cut.

Edit: Clarified a word.

The problem with the rending unto Caesar argument here, G_n_I is that your forgetting the rest of the sentence... render to God that which is God's. Human life is His by both right of Creation and Redemption. To willfully take a human life is murder, which is both illegal from a sociatal and moral perspective.

First: the 'render unto Caesar' reference was off-topic... I was not claiming it as justification for abortion.

Second: Using 'render unto Caesar', or any other scriptural reference, to support your view on abortion, is fine... UNLESS you try to then use that religious reasoning to impose laws on others that do not share that religion. To whit:

Third: I do not accept the validity of scripture - thus, your religious justification is irrelevent to me.

Fourth: It is possible to combine two cells to produce a viable third cell. This is possible (in some small scale) with non-sex-cells, and much more possible with sex cells. Thus - it is not the combination of cells that is the 'creation of life' that is the ability that ONLY 'god' has. God is supposed to have made the FIRST man and woman. It is obvious that man and woman have been making more men and women since then.

Thus - my life is not 'his' by creation. It is either mine (because I am using it), or my parent's (because they 'made' it).

Similarly:

Fifth: Jesus died to absolve the sins of those that followed, that believe on him. Thus - not all human life is 'redeemed' to 'god', either.

Thus - my life is mine, because I haven't 'redeemed' it.

Sixth: To wilfully take a human life is not murder. Murder is very specific... it MUST be a human life (which is still not 'proved' for the conceptus), and the 'life' must be taken illegally (while abortion is legal).

Thus - on two counts, merely 'taking life', or (more specifically) abortion is NOT murder.

Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
Although the Puritans wanted to reform the world to conform to God's law, they did not set up a church-run state. Even though they believed that the primary purpose of government was to punish breaches of God's laws, few people were as committed as the Puritans to the separation of church and state. Not only did they reject the idea of establishing a system of church courts, they also forbade ministers from holding public office.
Too bad you obviously don't agree with them here. Oh, it hurts when you wrong me so :( Now, is that really fair? Which part did you think I wouldn’t agree with? I even agree with the corporal punishment stuff you didn't quote. I think maybe you assign ideas to me that you believe I would have thought, but I have not actually said them. In fact, I don't see anything in there that I don't agree with.



Yes, and your form of "peer pressure" was "kicking their ass". I'm pretty sure that would fall under vigilante activity. I understand how you might mix the two up. However, one is community enforced corporal punishment, even if it is just a ‘kicking of ass,’ it’s punishment provided everyone knows what happens if you beat your wife and kids and they aren’t surprised by the occurrence. But the other is a spontaneous and angry mob rule, possible lynching etc., A man who beats his wife and kids should be afraid of her family and repercussions in my book and I’m not going to pretend to feel bad about thinking that way because it’s currently not popular.



And you find huge disagreements on most things. You have only quoted the authors that eventually informed the dogmatic Catholic church - there is much more out there. Again, you assume too much and you’ve wronged me yet again. Yes, I’ve quoted from sources that disagree about many things, but that agree about abortion and infanticide being wrong. I've referred to non-canonical and Jewish writings in this thread as well as the early Christian stuff.

You're correct, I apologize for getting my historical documents confused. I suppose the Declaration isn't law.

Although you may be trying to be sarcastic, you would be correct: the Declaration of Independence is not law.

See, you didn't just confuse two "historical documents."

The Constitution is the supreme law of land. Enforced everyday.

The Declaration is a historical document. It does not pretend to set laws nor does it contain any legal prescriptions that are currently enforced.

Most importantly, your argument that the Constitution grants full rights at conception is now proven to be without foundation.

Finally, the "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" from the Declaration does you little good anyway. You merely beg the question of when a person is "created" and "endowed" with rights.

Your implication that I don't recognize the possibility that I am wrong is inaccurate. The difference is that I am willing to act on the basis of my convictions, particularly when it comes to the protection of human life and the issue of when that occurs, conception or viability, is at best arbitrary, particularly in the case of viability as it is a function of technology rather than a developmental stage, which is why I think, G_n_I's position on brain activity makes far more sense than viability. The legal action I am willing to take is no different than stopping any other form of stopping murder, IMO.

Either you do not understand the relevant question re viability or you are deliberately attacking a strawman.

Viability is used as a legal divider because it marks a point at which the fetus may be said to have an existence separate from that of the woman. (That is the vastly oversimplified version.) If - as one should - one recognizes that the woman is a person with rights to her own body, a logical and moral point for the end to her right to abortion is when the fetus has a reasonable claim to viability -- to survival outside the womb. You consider this point "arbitrary" only because you disregard the woman and focus on the unborn.

Viability also rather closely approximates the question of brain actitivity.
In fact, current law based on viability errs on the side of fetal protection long before a fetus shows evidence of personhood.

The legal action you are willing to take has nothing to do with stopping murder. Abortion has never been murder under American law. Even when illegal, it was not murder.

You continue to simply ignore the meaning of the term "murder" so that you can use it as an inflammatory label for a medical procedure you find distasteful.

Oh, it hurts when you wrong me so :( Now, is that really fair? Which part did you think I wouldn’t agree with? I even agree with the corporal punishment stuff you didn't quote. I think maybe you assign ideas to me that you believe I would have thought, but I have not actually said them. In fact, I don't see anything in there that I don't agree with.

You have made it incredibly clear that you wish your own personal religion to be made law. Thus, I quoted the part dealing with a government separate from religion.

I understand how you might mix the two up. However, one is community enforced corporal punishment, even if it is just a ‘kicking of ass,’ it’s punishment provided everyone knows what happens if you beat your wife and kids and they aren’t surprised by the occurrence. But the other is a spontaneous and angry mob rule, possible lynching etc.,

There is no difference if it is any person at all doing it. This is why we have laws - and police officers to enforce them.

Again, you assume too much and you’ve wronged me yet again. Yes, I’ve quoted from sources that disagree about many things, but that agree about abortion and infanticide being wrong. I've referred to non-canonical and Jewish writings in this thread as well as the early Christian stuff.

I am really beginning to wonder if your reading comprehension could possibly be this abominable.

You said you used early Christan writings. I pointed out specifically that there were disagreements on just about every point in early Christian writings if you take all of them as a whole. You have chosen only to find writings by those who are seen as apostolic fathers - those who helped create the currently popular dogma. I was simply pointing out that there were quite a few early Christian viewpoints that were not incorporated into the Catholic church.

You have made it incredibly clear that you wish your own personal religion to be made law. Thus, I quoted the part dealing with a government separate from religion. You also quoted this at me (bolding by me now for emphasis Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
Although the Puritans wanted to reform the world to conform to God's law, they did not set up a church-run state. Even though they believed that the primary purpose of government was to punish breaches of God's laws, few people were as committed as the Puritans to the separation of church and state. Not only did they reject the idea of establishing a system of church courts, they also forbade ministers from holding public office.

I imply and say that I wanted abortion outlawed (among other things), and I never said anything about not being able to abide with freedom of the churches from the state.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I have no problems with that, or the Puritans.



I am really beginning to wonder if your reading comprehension could possibly be this abominable. Look who's talking now (see above: you quoted it yourself, then quoted at me again, oblivious to the fact there the entire paragraph goes together into a entire paraphrase ... Then you do it again below)



You said you used early Christan writings. I pointed out specifically that there were disagreements on just about every point in early Christian writings if you take all of them as a whole. You have chosen only to find writings by those who are seen as apostolic fathers - those who helped create the currently popular dogma. I was simply pointing out that there were quite a few early Christian viewpoints that were not incorporated into the Catholic church. I did not use only those writings, I’m entirely aware of the theological infancy period and disputes in the various early Christian churches. HOWEVER, I also used Jewish and Gnostic writings that were not taken into the canonical catholic church teachings. I referred to cannonical and non-cannonical references entirely because I was afraid someone would accuse me of what you just did so I went out of my way to make sure I references several different judeo-christian documents from that age. Alas, it didn't help, I got accused of it anyway. It seems some people simply expect to be able to use cookie-cutter statements when they confront scripture they don’t like. Then you accuse ME of not reading what you've written, go figure.

I did not use only those writings, I’m entirely aware of the theological infancy period and disputes in the various early Christian churches. HOWEVER, I also used Jewish and Gnostic writings that were not taken into the canonical catholic church teachings. I referred to cannonical and non-cannonical references entirely because I was afraid someone would accuse me of what you just did so I went out of my way to make sure I references several different judeo-christian documents from that age. Alas, it didn't help, I got accused of it anyway. It seems some people simply expect to be able to use cookie-cutter statements when they confront scripture they don’t like. Then you accuse ME of not reading what you've written, go figure.
the only problem with your using the writings of the early fathers of the church is that THEY DONT SUPPORT YOU

they only refer to fetuses that are at least 4months of gestation. that was when they knew a woman was pregnant. 4 months is a time when abortion begins to become illegal NOW.

I did not use only those writings, I’m entirely aware of the theological infancy period and disputes in the various early Christian churches. HOWEVER, I also used Jewish and Gnostic writings that were not taken into the canonical catholic church teachings. I referred to cannonical and non-cannonical references entirely because I was afraid someone would accuse me of what you just did so I went out of my way to make sure I references several different judeo-christian documents from that age. Alas, it didn't help, I got accused of it anyway. It seems some people simply expect to be able to use cookie-cutter statements when they confront scripture they don’t like. Then you accuse ME of not reading what you've written, go figure.

How exactly are writings from other religions "early Christian writings". Oh, wait, they are not.

I am not talking about judeo-christian documents. I am specifically speaking of Christian documents.

Have fun with that strawman though.

the only problem with your using the writings of the early fathers of the church is that THEY DONT SUPPORT YOU

they only refer to fetuses that are at least 4months of gestation. that was when they knew a woman was pregnant. 4 months is a time when abortion begins to become illegal NOW.
Actually that’s an assumption that has turned out to be false. They didn’t need to wait four months either. They could do it before via chemical compounds designed to induce an abortion OR, after. Post-birth infanticide was allowed in the Roman and Greek societies then, but was against the Jewish and Christian teachings of the day.

How exactly are writings from other religions "early Christian writings". Oh, wait, they are not.

I am not talking about judeo-christian documents. I am specifically speaking of Christian documents.

Have fun with that strawman though.

You just can't bring yourself to admit that you made a mistake and accused me of something I wasn't guilty of can you? Even for such a simple things as falsely accusing me of something rather trivial that required nothing but a “my bust, but it doesn’t matter anyway, you’re still wrong” response from you. But when I said you falsely accused me, you said even THAT was a lie.

Fine, evidence for the defense:

I posted these early Christian writings, the ones you said were the ONLY ones I used, the ones that would later form the basis of canonical law:

"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)

"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)


But I also posted Christian writings from all over the spectrum, canonical and otherwise. I also posted quotes from Jewish and Gnostics. From the non-orthodox and from the fringes of the extent of the Judeo Christian realm at the time.

I’ve posted some stuff that was from the Egyptian Christians in Alexandria, and other stuff from Damascus and the eastern Churches, and some stuff that was lost even before the council of Nicea was formed, but has been rediscovered via archaeological finds (mostly in Egypt but other places as well) in modern times.

I posted from all of these myriad of places exactly because I was trying to show that even then, in the world that acceptable infanticide (in place of modern day abortion, in the Greek and Roman realms especially), the earliest Judea-Christian theology was against abortion. At various points in this thread people had said either the Christians or the Jewish society, had accepable forms of abortion then, I showed that they did not. But also, I showed that even when they didn’t agree with each other about anything else, in this at least they set a new standard of agreement. It was at this time in history that infanticide and abortion were as close to anything as we have now in the modern world, socially acceptable methodologies for obtaining one were readily available.



Christian to Gentile writings, rediscovered in Constantinople in 1883 -- Sibyline Oracles: includes among the wicked those who "produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.

Assyrian/Syrian Christian Writings -- The Didache: "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn."

Gnostic Christian Writings -- 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."

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


And these contemporary Jewish stuff because much of the early Christian Church was coverted from these groups, they had ‘very’ similar outlooks on this…


Jewish -- 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."

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

Greek/Roman Jewish historian -- I Josephus (first-century) 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 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament -- I Enoch (first or second century B.C.) says that an evil angel taught humans how to "smash the embryo in the womb."




And I posted purely biblical scriptures

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.

I suggest that I have shown a reasonable and sensible argument that is representative of both the canonical and the non-canonical Christian writings that you accused me of not reporting AND, I showed the universal agreement in the Judeo-Christian writings of the time.

The defense rests...



FYI: It wasn’t until much later, after nations become ‘Christians’ by default of their governments, that the teachings become befuddled with empire and leaders were both sectarian and religious kings simultaneously (You can thank Constantine for that, but whatever, that’s a different topic) that the church began to adopt some rules that we might not agree with today, like selling salvation and forgiveness of sin papers, and endorsing one christian over a non-christian just for territory gain wars, that anything even remotely allowing an abortion was even discussed…

I am curious as to why 'god' cannot imbue a 'cell' with a soul until the DNA is completely merged. Did each seed contain half of a soul?

Anyway - ignoring souls - it has already been ONE cell for most of that duration... just one cell with a divided core... why do you chose the completion of the core to be the point at which the cell becomes 'human'?

Regarding the 'natural course' of child development... a full third of all concepta drop straight through... as a matter of course. This is NOT including complications, etc. So - even before the implantation stage - the 'natural course' of development is to kill 33% of the cells.

And, of course, if there is any irritation of the uterus, this fatality rate is drastically increased (which is HOW IUDs work) - which is still 'natural' (it IS a body response to irritated membranes).

I seem to recall hearing that, all things considered, less than 50% of all concepta ever make it all the way to baby-born... ignoring abortion.

By THAT token, allowing the conceptus to remain in the uterus is 'unnatural'.

'Natural' isn't really a good place for you to be arguing, anyway. 'Natural' reproduction is whenever the need arises, and has nothing to do with 'relationships', 'marriage', 'family', or any of the other hundreds of artificial constructs which we put around the act.

If we are talking 'natural' reproduction, then there is no such thing as monogamy...

I disagree. Natural reproduction is the outgrowth of God's creation and design and has everything to do with marriage as it is the only sanctioned forum for sexual activity as a part of the natural order of God's creation. It is these problems with concepta not reaching maturity that is the abarition of nature due to the degenerative effects of sin.

The issue of God "implanting a soul" is not one I can explain, except to say that a living human is a soul, dead human=dead soul. The idea of an imortal soul is one completely foriegn to my understanding of scripture.

Incorrect. Biology has a definition of an organism - one which a zygote does not meet.

That, however, is neither here nor there.

There is nothing but potential to separate a zygote from a skin cell. Both are alive - both have human DNA - both are dividing. Whether or not we place value on the potential is a subjective decision.



That is a very different statement from what you actually said, which is that they are simply trying to justify their actions.



In which case there is no justification occurring.



By that definition, you commit murder when you get a paper cut.

Edit: Clarified a word.

Not quite, I do define that natural potential as the difference between a living human being and a living cell, which means a paper cut isn't murder.

As for the justification of actions, there is an unconsious awareness of guilt and therefore a need to justify, while in the consious mind there is no knowledge of wrong doing, thereby leaving the individual unaware of their guilt in a way that they can comprehend.

Fifth: Jesus died to absolve the sins of those that followed, that believe on him. Thus - not all human life is 'redeemed' to 'god', either.

Thus - my life is mine, because I haven't 'redeemed' it.


I don't have time to deal with everything you said, but this is too important an issue to pass on...

Jesus died for all, in the place of all and has justified all. He did pay the price for you to set you free. You are His by right, but because rather than force you into slavery to Himself, He allows all humans the freedom to chose their former master, sin. A re-reading of the book of Romans, may help to clarify that for you, though I have to admit, it is a challenging theological subject.

Have a good afternoon.

Not quite, I do define that natural potential as the difference between a living human being and a living cell, which means a paper cut isn't murder.

And yet you still claim that your subjective placement of value upon potentiality is something you can force upon others. You personally define that potential as the definition of a human being. Most people define it as a human being when the actuality is realized. Who are you to say that you are right and enforce your personal beliefs on others?

As for the justification of actions, there is an unconsious awareness of guilt

In other words, exactly what I've been saying - that they agree with you somewhere deep down. In other words, exactly what I've been saying - you think there is no way someone could actually rationally disagree with you.


Jesus died for all, in the place of all and has justified all. He did pay the price for you to set you free. You are His by right, but because rather than force you into slavery to Himself, He allows all humans the freedom to chose their former master, sin. A re-reading of the book of Romans, may help to clarify that for you, though I have to admit, it is a challenging theological subject.

A rereading of the book of Romans might lead you to more of an Abelardian point of view as well - considering that there is quite a bit of background for it there. Or, maybe not.

Don't forget that different people get very different things out of the same texts.

Actually that’s an assumption that has turned out to be false.

Really. Please point to any evidence you have procurred that the quickening was not the time at which pregnancy was deemed important. Please point to any evidence that the ancient peoples understood the mechanisms of embryogenesis.

You just can't bring yourself to admit that you made a mistake and accused me of something I wasn't guilty of can you?

It isn't my fault that, as per usual, you have completely misread what I wrote in order to argue with something. Then, when I explained in in the last post, you completely ignored it.

I suggest that I have shown a reasonable and sensible argument that is representative of both the canonical and the non-canonical Christian writings that you accused me of not reporting AND, I showed the universal agreement in the Judeo-Christian writings of the time.

(a) You have shown a reasonable argument for what you personally believe. No one is disputing that. You have not, however, demonstrated a definitive argument. Anyone who is honest must admit that others will see things differently, interpret things differently, and may bring up writings which you have either not seen or completely ignored.

(b) Please point to where I said anything about canonical v. non-canonical writings. I simply pointed out that those actual Christian authors you brought up were those that were a part of determining what was later canon. Athenagoras, for instance, isn't exactly obscure.

FYI: It wasn’t until much later, after nations become ‘Christians’ by default of their governments, that the teachings become befuddled with empire and leaders were both sectarian and religious kings simultaneously (You can thank Constantine for that, but whatever, that’s a different topic) that the church began to adopt some rules that we might not agree with today, like selling salvation and forgiveness of sin papers, and endorsing one christian over a non-christian just for territory gain wars, that anything even remotely allowing an abortion was even discussed…

You say "the church" as if it has always been a single, cohesive group. That was never, in the history of the church, true - even before the government began to get involved. Of course, I would point out - since you have brought it up - that many of the key decisions in the history of the Catholic church were heavily influenced by politics - sometimes sliding back and forth depending on who was in power at the time - sometimes even suggested by the rulers themselves.

There is a reason that I trust the guidance of God over anything another human being tells me - even much of the early church. I simply don't trust politicians, nor do I trust in the infallibility of any human being.

Awwww.....Cat-Tribe removed his sig..... :rolleyes:

Really. Please point to any evidence you have procurred that the quickening was not the time at which pregnancy was deemed important. Please point to any evidence that the ancient peoples understood the mechanisms of embryogenesis. The post I responded to was not about the 'quickening.' It said they wrote about pregnancies at the four month stage because that's when they knew they were pregnant, so that the writings I quoted had to be talking about fetus' at that stage or later. I pointed out that it wasn't true. Not one word about anyone having a knowledge of mechanisms of embryogenesis. I had pointed out previously that they had working chemical concoctions that were taken with the intent of inducing an abortions, and (previously in this thread) I pointed out that they had access to effective pregnancies tests that had even been developed over a thousand years (1350 B.C.E.) before the period I'm talking about now(50 B.C.E. to 450 C.E.). So, the part I said was in error was assuming that the writers only knew about pregnancies at the stages of four months and after, and assuming they only talked about pregnancies after that stage - was incorrect. Irregardless if they had any idea about embryogenesis or events that occur in stages during the developmental stages of pregnancy.



It isn't my fault that, as per usual, you have completely misread what I wrote in order to argue with something. Then, when I explained in in the last post, you completely ignored it. Neither is it my fault that you keep slithering your position around so that you are never held accountable for your words... You explained what? That I didn't include other Christian groups, yes I did, and then I quoted them again for proof, but then you forgot that the discussion was showing that I did or did not show something, not whether or not you had to agree with what I said or the reason 'why' I referred to them in the first place...



(a) You have shown a reasonable argument for what you personally believe. No one is disputing that. You have not, however, demonstrated a definitive argument. Anyone who is honest must admit that others will see things differently, interpret things differently, and may bring up writings which you have either not seen or completely ignored. Thank you for where it was intended. At least now I know that I can do no more along those lines. Theology is theology, sometimes you just have to end up disagree


(b) Please point to where I said anything about canonical v. non-canonical writings. I simply pointed out that those actual Christian authors you brought up were those that were a part of determining what was later canon. Athenagoras, for instance, isn't exactly obscure.

Okay, I’ll point it out ~ You said it here…

I am really beginning to wonder if your reading comprehension could possibly be this abominable.

You said you used early Christan writings. I pointed out specifically that there were disagreements on just about every point in early Christian writings if you take all of them as a whole. You have chosen only to find writings by those who are seen as apostolic fathers* - those who helped create the currently popular dogma. I was simply pointing out that there were quite a few early Christian viewpoints that were not incorporated into the Catholic church**.

*Canonical
** Non-Canonical

Then I showed againt what I had quoted and then pointed out that it was not consisting of ONLY the type you said I used.…

I disagree. Natural reproduction is the outgrowth of God's creation and design and has everything to do with marriage as it is the only sanctioned forum for sexual activity as a part of the natural order of God's creation. It is these problems with concepta not reaching maturity that is the abarition of nature due to the degenerative effects of sin.

The issue of God "implanting a soul" is not one I can explain, except to say that a living human is a soul, dead human=dead soul. The idea of an imortal soul is one completely foriegn to my understanding of scripture.

First - I am glad that we agree on one thing... and probably this one thing would shock many Christians. There is no scriptural support for an immortal soul... in fact, the soul (by it's scriptural definition) cannot outlive the body.

I have to raise an issue about marriage, though. Marriage existed before there were Christians, or even Jews... and has continuously existed apart from those two groups, also. I cannot, therefore, reconcile your vision of 'marriage' as the holy sanction for sex, with the realities of - not only the Hebrews consumation marriages, but also the non-Christian marriages of other cultures.

But, regarding the specific wording of your post - surely you must see that, if god imposes a rule to order something, that ordered version must NOT be the natural route - else the 'rule' would be redundant.

Thus, even if you believe that Marriage is 'necessary' for reproduction - you must admit that it is not 'natural'.

The post I responded to was not about the 'quickening.' It said they wrote about pregnancies at the four month stage because that's when they knew they were pregnant, so that the writings I quoted had to be talking about fetus' at that stage or later. I pointed out that it wasn't true. Not one word about anyone having a knowledge of mechanisms of embryogenesis. I had pointed out previously that they had working chemical concoctions that were taken with the intent of inducing an abortions, and (previously in this thread) I pointed out that they had access to effective pregnancies tests that had even been developed over a thousand years (1350 B.C.E.) before the period I'm talking about now(50 B.C.E. to 450 C.E.). So, the part I said was in error was assuming that the writers only knew about pregnancies at the stages of four months and after, and assuming they only talked about pregnancies after that stage - was incorrect. Irregardless if they had any idea about embryogenesis or events that occur in stages during the developmental stages of pregnancy.

At what point in any of your posts did you demonstrate that these concoctions were taken when a woman had simply missed a period, but was unsure if she was pregnant? At what point did you demonstrate conclusively that "abortion", as used in the quotes, referred to what we would call early term abortions? At what point did you demonstrate that the Egyptian test was in widespread usage or knowledge?

Do not claim to have anything conclusive here - you do not.

Okay, I’ll point it out ~ You said it here…


*Canonical
** Non-Canonical

You are inferring those words - I did not directly state them as such. Which of your early Christian writers was deemed heretical? Which did not inform the future church's decisions?

As for the fetus and woman, contrary to typical unscientific liberal views, the fetus is not part of the woman's body. To say it is, would be equivalent to saying that the virus or germs causing you to be sick or injured are part of your body.
Glad you agree. Bacteria in the body can be got rid of with antibiotics, and are attacked by the immune system. Foeti can be got rid of with abortion, and are attacked by the immune system.

I don't have time to deal with everything you said, but this is too important an issue to pass on...

Jesus died for all, in the place of all and has justified all. He did pay the price for you to set you free. You are His by right, but because rather than force you into slavery to Himself, He allows all humans the freedom to chose their former master, sin. A re-reading of the book of Romans, may help to clarify that for you, though I have to admit, it is a challenging theological subject.

Have a good afternoon.

Sorry - don't have much time today... this will likely be my last post of the day...

I agree to an extent - but I think you are missing the main point of Romans... yes, the earlier chapters talk about how Jesus died for us, etc... but look at Romans 8.

Romans 8:1-3 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit... For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death...For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh".

Also:

Romans 8:9-11 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.... And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness... But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you

It certainly seems to say that the price was paid, to 'redeem' those who walk in the spirit... and goes on to say that those who 'walk in the spirit', are those in whom the Spirit of Christ (God) resides... the believers... the 'saved'.


The way I see it, Romans 8 spells out exactly what I said in my post - only those that follow, that believe, are 'redeemed' by the Calvary sacrifice.

Awwww.....Cat-Tribe removed his sig..... :rolleyes:

Awwwww .... no, I did not. :rolleyes:

You must feel like one of those people in the Southwest Airlines commercials: wanna get away? ;)

Jesus died for all, in the place of all and has justified all. He did pay the price for you to set you free. You are His by right, but because rather than force you into slavery to Himself, He allows all humans the freedom to chose their former master, sin. A re-reading of the book of Romans, may help to clarify that for you, though I have to admit, it is a challenging theological subject.

Have a good afternoon.

Hi PR, I am as well a fellow Christian, so I feel it s my duty to point out to you that this is a SERIOUSLY flawed theology.

Justification is, was, and always will be by faith alone! (See Acts 13:39, Romans 3:28, 10:10, prety much all of Romans, Galations 2:16-17, 3:24, Titus 3:7, etc.).

The sacrifice was made for all, but only through repentance and faith in God, does the blood "wash our sins away" and "make us white as snow", justifying us before God, reckoning us as righteous and holy in His eyes. Which is why Paul addresses his fellow believers as saints, or "holy ones."

:D

Awwwww .... no, I did not. :rolleyes:

You must feel like one of those people in the Southwest Airlines commercials: wanna get away? ;)

You know I'm just having fun with you, right? Here.....here's a snuggle for you sparky. :fluffle:

But I'm serious, I can't see your sig anymore. Maybe my settings changed or something. Personally, sometimes I enjoy reading people's sig's more than the posts. :D

Ya, somehow my settings changed. Anyways, I had to use one of your quotes in my sig, I loved it! Hope you don't mind. :rolleyes:

At what point in any of your posts did you demonstrate that these concoctions were taken when a woman had simply missed a period, but was unsure if she was pregnant? At what point did you demonstrate conclusively that "abortion", as used in the quotes, referred to what we would call early term abortions? At what point did you demonstrate that the Egyptian test was in widespread usage or knowledge?

Do not claim to have anything conclusive here - you do not.

You are inferring those words - I did not directly state them as such. Which of your early Christian writers was deemed heretical? Which did not inform the future church's decisions?

At what point do I get to assume that you know what the words mean when I use the words that match your descriptions? I assumed that you would know that "Gnostic" writings were declared heretical. I assumed that you knew cannonical would be 'accepted' and non-cannonical would not be accepted writings by the later church.

At what point can I use words like 'pre-exodus' egyptian medical book to show that the Hebrews would have had both knowledge of it and have access to it? I cannot be expected to give everyone a brief historical account of the beginnings of the Hebrew people for every post. The same as you cannot be expected to educate everyone about every biology term you use during your posts. At some point the reader has to take responsility for themesleves to know and understanding the terms used in the field of discussion.

Things like, the Judeo-Hebrews that left Egypt were not 'Hebrews' as we commonly think of them until after the exodus. Before the exodus and Moses, they were culturaly slaves, but they had no laws, they had no shared heritage except for being slaves in Egypt. Archaeologically speaking, the people that formed the group Moses led out of Egypt were of the same religion/culture but not of the same ethnicity.

They were, essentially, an egyptian ethnicity themselves by the time they were led out of Egypt by Moses. What the Egyptians knew, they knew, and vice versa.

The pregnancy test was simply a bowl of seeds, less than the price of a loaf of bread, and they had readily available cross-cultural information with the egyptians, there would be no reason for them to have lost the know-how to apply it. I suggest, that at this point, you would have to show that the knowledge had been lost to them to suggest that they didn't know how to do it.

As to the applications of the concotions. We do know that they had them because they refered to them repeatedly as I have already shown. But what I do not know is which types of concotions they had access to. I can deduct from the medical writings of the time, Roman and Greek for example, that concotions of chemicals were primarily for first term pregnancies and that physical remedies (surgery and or abuse of the mother) was required to dislodge a fetus attached by cord (second term).

At some point we have to infer that it is your repsonibility to show that you have reasons to suggest what I have said is not right, or that I have come to the wrong coclussions or something, because I haved backed up my statements with both ancient writings and accepted archaeological understanding of the period to show why I think what I think.

You know I'm just having fun with you, right? Here.....here's a snuggle for you sparky. *snip*

Ya, somehow my settings changed. Anyways, I had to use one of your quotes in my sig, I loved it! Hope you don't mind. :rolleyes:

No worries. I give it, I take it. :)

And I'm honored to have my quote in your sig. Such wise words should be spread! ;) :D

At what point do I get to assume that you know what the words mean when I use the words that match your descriptions? I assumed that you would know that "Gnostic" writings were declared heretical. I assumed that you knew cannonical would be 'accepted' and non-cannonical would not be accepted writings by the later church.

At what point can I use words like 'pre-exodus' egyptian medical book to show that the Hebrews would have had both knowledge of it and have access to it? I cannot be expected to give everyone a brief historical account of the beginnings of the Hebrew people for every post. The same as you cannot be expected to educate everyone about every biology term you use during your posts. At some point the reader has to take responsility for themesleves to know and understanding the terms used in the field of discussion.

Things like, the Judeo-Hebrews that left Egypt were not 'Hebrews' as we commonly think of them until after the exodus. Before the exodus and Moses, they were culturaly slaves, but they had no laws, they had no shared heritage except for being slaves in Egypt. Archaeologically speaking, the people that formed the group Moses led out of Egypt were of the same religion/culture but not of the same ethnicity.

They were, essentially, an egyptian ethnicity themselves by the time they were led out of Egypt by Moses. What the Egyptians knew, they knew, and vice versa.

The pregnancy test was simply a bowl of seeds, less than the price of a loaf of bread, and they had readily available cross-cultural information with the egyptians, there would be no reason for them to have lost the know-how to apply it. I suggest, that at this point, you would have to show that the knowledge had been lost to them to suggest that they didn't know how to do it.

As to the applications of the concotions. We do know that they had them because they refered to them repeatedly as I have already shown. But what I do not know is which types of concotions they had access to. I can deduct from the medical writings of the time, Roman and Greek for example, that concotions of chemicals were primarily for first term pregnancies and that physical remedies (surgery and or abuse of the mother) was required to dislodge a fetus attached by cord (second term).

At some point we have to infer that it is your repsonibility to show that you have reasons to suggest what I have said is not right, or that I have come to the wrong coclussions or something, because I haved backed up my statements with both ancient writings and accepted archaeological understanding of the period to show why I think what I think.

Hollow rhetoric.

No evidence.

Hardly worth looking at, much less debating.

Prove that the Hebrews had a pregnancy test, or withdraw it as speculation.

Prove ANYTHING about the people Moses allegedly 'led out of Egypt'... I, for one, would be fascinated to see ANY archeological evidence.

You are all speculation, and no evidence.

Bored now.

At what point do I get to assume that you know what the words mean when I use the words that match your descriptions? I assumed that you would know that "Gnostic" writings were declared heretical. I assumed that you knew cannonical would be 'accepted' and non-cannonical would not be accepted writings by the later church.

You are using cannonical and non-cannonical in a different way that my theology class did. Sorry if I didn't know your personal definitions. Canon generally refers to something that is more than accepted - something that is pretty much mandated for use.

At what point can I use words like 'pre-exodus' egyptian medical book to show that the Hebrews would have had both knowledge of it and have access to it? I cannot be expected to give everyone a brief historical account of the beginnings of the Hebrew people for every post.

The assumption that slaves would have access to everything the Egyptians might have known is a little silly, don't you think? How do we know that the bulk of known medicine wasn't pretty much restricted to the upper classes - as it has been throughout most of history?

Things like, the Judeo-Hebrews that left Egypt were not 'Hebrews' as we commonly think of them until after the exodus. Before the exodus and Moses, they were culturaly slaves, but they had no laws, they had no shared heritage except for being slaves in Egypt. Archaeologically speaking, the people that formed the group Moses led out of Egypt were of the same religion/culture but not of the same ethnicity.

So all those stories about Abraham and the sons of Abraham are bogus, eh? The Hebrews weren't led to the promised land because it had been promised to Abraham and they were his descendents? Please tell us more of your new theology.

At some point we have to infer that it is your repsonibility to show that you have reasons to suggest what I have said is not right, or that I have come to the wrong coclussions or something, because I haved backed up my statements with both ancient writings and accepted archaeological understanding of the period to show why I think what I think.

You have backed up your statements with many, many assumptions that could be made in either direction. I'm not trying to prove you wrong - I'm just pointing out to you that you could be wrong, and that you need to accept that fact. There are other ways of looking at everything that you have presented. If you aren't open-minded enough to see that, I believe it is your failing, not mine.

You are using cannonical and non-cannonical in a different way that my theology class did. Sorry if I didn't know your personal definitions. Canon generally refers to something that is more than accepted - something that is pretty much mandated for use.


Where I come from, 'canonical' means 'of the canon'... meaning: 'of the established body of work', basically.

So - for example: The Book of Tobit might be considered 'canonical' IF you were talking about the scripture as it pertains to Catholics, but 'non-canonical' if you were talking about the books available to Southern Baptists.

Another example would be the collected works of an author (The 'canon' of Philip K Dick), or in a 'set' of some kind (you could have a 'canon' of Chemistry textbooks considered 'worthy').

Specific to Bible Study - I believe the term 'canon' usually means the books that HAVE NOW been accepted as the books of the Bible (which, of course, differs... depending on whether you are Catholic, or not).

However, it could also mean the 'canon' of a given time. The 'canon' of 100BC would likely be very different to the 'canon' of today.


I find it hard to keep track of which way Ph33rdom uses terminology...

Specific to Bible Study - I believe the term 'canon' usually means the books that HAVE NOW been accepted as the books of the Bible (which, of course, differs... depending on whether you are Catholic, or not).

...which is exactly how I have seen it used, although I would say that papal decrees and such are also canonical in Catholocism. However, the writings of Augustine, Anselm, Tertulian, or any number of ancient theologians would be widely accepted as an authority, while still not being canonical in and of themselves.

...which is exactly how I have seen it used, although I would say that papal decrees and such are also canonical in Catholocism. However, the writings of Augustine, Anselm, Tertulian, or any number of ancient theologians would be widely accepted as an authority, while still not being canonical in and of themselves.

Exactly. If you are talking 'scripture' - the 'canon' is the accepted books of the Bible.... at the moment, our 'canon' is pretty much King James, give or take.

If you are talking Catholicism, as you say, you could also include the text covered by Dogmatic Law.

You could consider Augustine, et al as 'canonical', if the 'canon' in question was 'religious writings'... but they are neither papal decree nor scripture - so they are NOT acceptable as part of the 'scriptural canon'.

And, as it stands, neither are the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.

I wish Ph33rdom would make clear which type of 'authority' he is supposed to be appealing to....

Yes, Jesus was talking tax - but he doesn't limit it to tax... he is, in fact, somewhat deliberately open-ended about the whole thing.

He could have said something about taxes specifically, but he approaches it with a much more generic manner... "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's".... carefully modulated so as NOT to merely include taxes, it would seem.

A direct parallel is immediately visible to government... and not inconstant with what Jesus teaches... it certainly seems that Jesus respected the separation of church and state.
Let's face it he didn't have much of a choice when the 'state' worshipped approximately 60 gods with the god of road building numbered among them .

It's one of the instances where the character normally described as pacifistic, takes on a vengeful, even violent, aspect.


You could argue it was his godly side, being affronted beyond temptation... you COULD argue it was his human (and thus fallible) side.

Either way, it was obviously a very special exception... it actually kind of fits with the whole 'render unto God' part, actually... those merchants were in the house of 'god', but they were doing ANYTHING BUT 'rendering unto 'god''.
Kinda but missing the main point (ok one of the main points). Closer to being tempted to sin through anger at that point Jesus was closer to sinning through deception. When I said a 'show', it was just that. He was in the temple the day before remember, and had been before that. He'd seen what was happening before. He just chose a certain day to demonstrate a fraction of the wrath of God. It wasn't vengeful or violent (well, a little). It was controlled and calculating.

He'd probably even taken note of the times the temple guards went to the loo so he wouldn't get arrested!

Soo off topic. Was this about the three english girls who got pregnant before they were 16 and are now on (according to some sources) £30,000+ a year in benefits. If not.. it could be

...which is exactly how I have seen it used, although I would say that papal decrees and such are also canonical in Catholocism. However, the writings of Augustine, Anselm, Tertulian, or any number of ancient theologians would be widely accepted as an authority, while still not being canonical in and of themselves.
trust the bloody catholics to bring in Religious copyrighting and authentication rules. you'd think God's would have been good enough.

I'm just kidding.. gotta love catholics. Dogma - great film. wait a minute...