NationStates Jolt Archive

You can rationalize and rattle on and on about anything you like, but what it boils down to is, I cannot justify ( on moral or any other grounds ) telling someone else what they have to do with their own womb. It's her womb, not mine, not the state's, not anyone's but hers.

BTW ... I find abortion morally repugnant, but I refuse to use the law to justify my morality. If I can't convince a woman that it's unacceptable to have an abortion, then I'm out of the loop.

The embryo is not hers. It belongs to itself. If she was just making a decision about her womb she would be entitled to make whatever decsion she wanted to. But she isnt. She is not making the decision in a vaccum. She is not the only one being affected. It is unacceptable to allow one person to make those kinds of decisions about someone elses existance. It is just wrong.

The embryo is not hers. It belongs to itself. If she was just making a decision about her womb she would be entitled to make whatever decsion she wanted to. But she isnt. She is not making the decision in a vaccum. She is not the only one being affected. It is unacceptable to allow one person to make those kinds of decisions about someone elses existance. It is just wrong.

Yes, so no more birth control. We are arguing from potential here and birth control prevents potential. Because we have all agreed that an embryo is not a person and not living organism so we can only make the above arguments if we are considering potential.

So - you are saying that Jesus was the product of rape?

No, because Mary wanted to obey God.


The woman, obviously. The embryo has no consciousness, so can feel no loss.


So by killing you in your sleep I am morally justified because you can feel no loss?


Actually, she does.

You are confusing YOUR wishes, with law.

We are arguing for a change in the law. And the law already recognises the right to live via murder. "But its not alive" you say? Well what is it. Its not alive because it can't respond to stimuli. Its not dead because the cells which make it up are alive and they are not dying or decomposing and it is growing. It is not inanimate seeing as how it is growing and developing. So what is it?


No. Removing the machine is not 'killing him'... it is just 'not keeping him alive'..

So sufficating someone isnt killing them. Its "not keeping them alive" as it removes the life support of air?


Remeber, you said we should not 'play God'? Well, isn't keeping someone alive that cannot feed themselves, or breathe without help, 'playing God'?

No, because we are keeping them alive. By that logic, we are playing God when we breathe as we are keeping ourselves alive.


Also... the whole point with the comatose patient, is that we CAN'T know that this person will be okay in 9 months. Or ever.

It is a metaphor Grave. Saying that aborting an embryo is like removing the life support machine of someone who is comatose but whom we know will be ok in 9 months time. IT IS A METAPHOR. Understand.

Yes, so no more birth control. We are arguing from potential here and birth control prevents potential. Because we have all agreed that an embryo is not a person and not living organism so we can only make the above arguments if we are considering potential.

No, because as I have explained sperm and egg are not part of the life cycle of a human. The reason being is the fundimental diffrence between development and formation. If something develops it exists already but is changing. Whereas formation is taking two or more things and putting them togther in a fashion whereby what is formed is neither of the original things. You see an embryo is certian to continue its development along the human development path (bar natural causes or accident) but there is no certianty as to whether or not a sperm or an egg will form an embryo.

Firstly, to say that its the womans choice makes the assumption that she is making the decision in a vacumm.

No, it doesn't. People make choices that affect other people all the time, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

No, it doesn't. People make choices that affect other people all the time, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

Not on this scale. I do not have the right to determine whether or not you continue to exist.

Alright, human life begins the instant the sperm and the egg meet. Abortion destroyes that, so therefore is murder. And, using this "Prochoice" argument, meaning its a woman's right to murder her child, then I suppose that all of the mothers who have killed their children in cases of neglect are outside the law as well.

Oh, yeah, there's some great debating skillz right there... :rolleyes:

One thing I have to ask to the pro choice without limit people - if it's not a human, then what is it? A zebra? A giraffe? I may be just uneducated, but last I heard humans can only become pregnant with humans. If there is a case of a human giving birth to a dog, I'm quite certain the whole medical field would be very interested to hear about it.

The whole "but it's my body!" thing isn't too bright either, because once again last I checked when babies are born they tend to come with bodies too. I'm not really aware of a single person on this planet who doesn't have a body. Once again, if you know anyone without a body I'm quite certain all the medical journals in the world will pay you some good money to hear about it. So considering this, isn't it quite hypocritical to use the "but it's my body" excuse, considering I'm quite certain the kid who's body you wish to kill would argue it's his and thus his decision as to whether or not it dies. Unless of course you want to argue that we don't have the right to decide whether or not our bodies die by someone else's intrusion, in which case you're saying that all forms of murder are legal.

There is no intelligent way to argue in favor of abortions without limit. You either fail to acknowledge that humans can only give birth to humans, or you fail to acknowledge that you are not the only person on the planet with a body, and those are some pretty big facts to be ignoring.

I am not saying abortion in every case is bad. I will forever argue that it's okay if the mother would die otherwise. I mean, if you make them both die, then where the hell was the purpose of even being against abortion in the first place? It's to prevent needless deaths, not cause more of them. I can also see the desire in cases of rape or severe birth defects.

However, for people that just get pregnent and then decided they're too lazy to give birth to a kid so they kill him or kill the kid because they want a boy or a girl, I think those people should be castrated.

I'm 90% pro life, as I am against abortion but do recognize that there are scenarios in which it probably, sadly, is the best course of action. The type of pro-choice I generally support is the type that says you have a choice whether or not to get pregnant, and after that I believe laziness and pickiness are not reasons to get abortions. If someone's life is in danger then who are any of us to say avoid an abortion? But when I hear about people who get abortions because they wanted a boy but are getting a girl, I seriously wish it was legal to hurt those people quite badly.

Appeling to the law is pointless. We are arguing for a change in the law.

Then you better stop appealing to the law by calling it "murder".

No, because Mary wanted to obey God.


But God didn't ask her. Jesus was not a product of two consenting adult beings. Besides, we all know what happens to people who disobey god.

And Mary didn't even have an orgasm. :mad:

GnI, can I start doing this? Show up in a HUGE thread for about a half hour. Post some high-profile sources and suggest because they are reputable they cannot be refuted. Then make an argument that is not based on those sources, claim that anyone who argues against me is denying the evidence found on these reputable sources that don't agree with me, then claim I am the victor since I won't consider any arguments other than my own.

"I WIN!!"

Hey, I'm good with it. :)

Of course, if you did it arguing against me, I'd show no more mercy than you do.....;)

But God didn't ask her. Jesus was not a product of two consenting adult beings. Besides, we all know what happens to people who disobey god.


Mary did consent. Havent you read the verse.

The embryo is not hers. It belongs to itself. If she was just making a decision about her womb she would be entitled to make whatever decsion she wanted to. But she isnt. She is not making the decision in a vaccum. She is not the only one being affected. It is unacceptable to allow one person to make those kinds of decisions about someone elses existance. It is just wrong.

Actually - she IS making a decision PURELY about her womb.

'She' doesn't want a baby in it... but, it isn't the foetus that is the issue, it is HER wanting HER uterus vacant.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate, that, with all the billions of dollars poored through the medical industry, they haven't devised a way 'she' can have her empty uterus, and the foetus can have a place of it's own.

Abortion wishes no ill will to the conceptus. Your argument is flawed if you believe it does.


Heh. I'm actually rooting FOR Eutrusca, this time....

Mary did consent. Havent you read the verse.

To be honest, nope. From what I know he send an angel to tell her that she will carry his son. Not much of a choice involved there.

But if you like, post the according verses.

Then you better stop appealing to the law by calling it "murder".

Murder is far more than a legal term. It is a moral one. The killing of a person without legitmate cause.

Actually - she IS making a decision PURELY about her womb.

'She' doesn't want a baby in it... but, it isn't the foetus that is the issue, it is HER wanting HER uterus vacant.

And in making that womb vacent she is killing the embryo. Her womb is not the only one in issue here.


It is, perhaps, unfortunate, that, with all the billions of dollars poored through the medical industry, they haven't devised a way 'she' can have her empty uterus, and the foetus can have a place of it's own.

So basicly your saying that because we dont have the technology to extract the embryo and give it somewhere else to live it is right to abort it. No that is wrong.


Abortion wishes no ill will to the conceptus. Your argument is flawed if you believe it does.

Heh. I'm actually rooting FOR Eutrusca, this time....

It may not wish any ill to the conceptus but that doesnt mean it doesnt cause it ill. Ever heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

No, because as I have explained sperm and egg are not part of the life cycle of a human.

Yes, which in order to accept one has to not understand the life cycle. The life cycle is just that a cycle. It's like talking about the cycle of rain and ignoring evaporation arbitrarily. Here is the cycle (it can actually start anywhere). Adult, gametes, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult, and so on. It also includes all in between stages. A cylce includes the entire cycle. You can't simply leave a stage out because it hurts your argument.

The reason being is the fundimental diffrence between development and formation. If something develops it exists already but is changing. Whereas formation is taking two or more things and putting them togther in a fashion whereby what is formed is neither of the original things. You see an embryo is certian to continue its development along the human development path (bar natural causes or accident) but there is no certianty as to whether or not a sperm or an egg will form an embryo.

Yes, they will either die or become an embryo. The embryo will either die or become a fetus. The fetus will either die or become a baby. These are the only choices, just like every other stage of the cycle. In each stage of the cycle you can ONLY go forward. The last stage (adulthood) is unique in every life cycle because the adult organism both dies and creates the gametes. The creation of the gametes is really the only stage is not just a continuation of the previous stage. It's really the only place where you could argue breaking the cycle but you aren't even doing that. To not include gametes in the cycle you must break the connection between the parent and the embryo and it would not be a cycle.

One thing I have to ask to the pro choice without limit people - if it's not a human, then what is it? A zebra? A giraffe? I may be just uneducated, but last I heard humans can only become pregnant with humans. If there is a case of a human giving birth to a dog, I'm quite certain the whole medical field would be very interested to hear about it.

No, it isn't about being human. It is about counting as alive biologically. The Embryo's cells do, but the Embryo does not.

Neither does a Virus for that matter: Scientist aren't sure what to classify Virus because they aren't dead (they have to be alive to become dead ), but they aren't alive.

The whole "but it's my body!" thing isn't too bright either, because once again last I checked when babies are born they tend to come with bodies too. I'm not really aware of a single person on this planet who doesn't have a body. Once again, if you know anyone without a body I'm quite certain all the medical journals in the world will pay you some good money to hear about it. So considering this, isn't it quite hypocritical to use the "but it's my body" excuse, considering I'm quite certain the kid who's body you wish to kill would argue it's his and thus his decision as to whether or not it dies. Unless of course you want to argue that we don't have the right to decide whether or not our bodies die by someone else's intrusion, in which case you're saying that all forms of murder are legal.

Babies do not equal fetus or embryo.
Baby is term for a child born.

Neither a Fetus or a embryo is born yet.

A Embryo has no rights because
1. it isn't proven alive biologically
2. He is using you as life support and has no right to.
3. No one can force someone to give me or you life support.

Prove the Govt or anyone has a yet to force you to give me life support. Than that will show you a un-democratic govt. No freedom= forced life support.


There is no intelligent way to argue in favor of abortions without limit. You either fail to acknowledge that humans can only give birth to humans, or you fail to acknowledge that you are not the only person on the planet with a body, and those are some pretty big facts to be ignoring.

Who said anythign about no limits?
I'm talking about embryos can be aborted.
I'm not saying people born can be abortred (the nonsense in that statement).

I'm the only one who can give permission to use my body. No one: I repeat no one can force me to give another my blood, my kidney, my liver, or my brain, without my permission! Especially my brain (as that would kill me).

I am not saying abortion in every case is bad. I will forever argue that it's okay if the mother would die otherwise. I mean, if you make them both die, then where the hell was the purpose of even being against abortion in the first place? It's to prevent needless deaths, not cause more of them. I can also see the desire in cases of rape or severe birth defects.

I'm gonna turn your own argument against you:
So the fetus or embryo can be killed in rape, why by your argument? Doesn't the embryo or fetus have a right to his body? Why does rape take away that right by your beliefs?
Are rape children less human?


However, for people that just get pregnent and then decided they're too lazy to give birth to a kid so they kill him or kill the kid because they want a boy or a girl, I think those people should be castrated.

I'd say only if they wait till the fetus is viable If the fetus at that point can live outsidethe bodt: no need to abort it; just transplant it to a orphanage. If it dies there because it wasn't really viable: not your problem.

Most people say give it up to adoption and you did.

I'm 90% pro life, as I am against abortion but do recognize that there are scenarios in which it probably, sadly, is the best course of action. The type of pro-choice I generally support is the type that says you have a choice whether or not to get pregnant, and after that I believe laziness and pickiness are not reasons to get abortions. If someone's life is in danger then who are any of us to say avoid an abortion? But when I hear about people who get abortions because they wanted a boy but are getting a girl, I seriously wish it was legal to hurt those people quite badly.

Well, I'm 90% Pro-choice.
I'm against partial birth abortions pretty much.

Pro-choice is all about you have the right to have an abortion or not: pregnancy has nothig to do with it.
I can use protect as a girl(if I was one) and still get pregnant. I didn't have that choice after all so your not at all pro-choice.

Now you can change the fetus's gender with technology before their are born: eyes, hair, etc. So no need for abortions in those cases (if you can afford the technology.)

One thing I have to ask to the pro choice without limit people - if it's not a human, then what is it? A zebra? A giraffe? I may be just uneducated, but last I heard humans can only become pregnant with humans. If there is a case of a human giving birth to a dog, I'm quite certain the whole medical field would be very interested to hear about it.

The whole "but it's my body!" thing isn't too bright either, because once again last I checked when babies are born they tend to come with bodies too. I'm not really aware of a single person on this planet who doesn't have a body. Once again, if you know anyone without a body I'm quite certain all the medical journals in the world will pay you some good money to hear about it.

You're right. You're uneducated. At the point of most abortions there is no body and no baby. Like you said, I don't know anyone without a body so it was not anyone. It was not someone. It was an embryo that never became anyone or someone and never reached the point of having a body.

No one is claiming it's not human so you can take that one of the table. No one has ever been born with a heart that wasn't human. Yep, it's human. What's your point?

Planned parenthood is very much pro abortion, read their statistics, they do not coucil people on any course but abortion in their clinics as stated by several outpatient polls. The Bible says "You knit me together in my mothers womb." and "My form was not hidden from you" and John recognized Jesus while both children were still inutero. Esua and Jacob struggled in their mother's womb. Every time the word 'child', 'babe', 'baby', or 'son' is used in relation to an unborn child in the Bible it is the SAME word used for one that has already been born. *my husband has about 40 pages written on the word choices, I expect i could email them to you if you wanted, but check Strongs Concordance or a Bible Dictonary for verification* The God of the Bible, and the Jesus of the Bible, make no distinction between a baby not yet left the womb from a baby who has been born.

Your holy book is not my moral compass, so you might want to quote another source. (Your holy book, in fact, condones slavery and the inferiority of women in relation to men, and killing people simply because they worship a different god, including children)

No, because Mary wanted to obey God.


She didn't really have a choice. From what I recall, it was presented as pretty much a fait accompli. SHe had the choice of say 'yay'... or tough shit, she was up-the-duff anyways.


So by killing you in your sleep I am morally justified because you can feel no loss?


I think you are confused. I am conscious, now. I am less conscious when asleep.

But, awake or asleep, I HAVE 'consciousness'.


We are arguing for a change in the law. And the law already recognises the right to live via murder. "But its not alive" you say? Well what is it. Its not alive because it can't respond to stimuli. Its not dead because the cells which make it up are alive and they are not dying or decomposing and it is growing. It is not inanimate seeing as how it is growing and developing. So what is it?


Will you please read my posts? I have shown at least twice, that your living/dead/inanimate idea is hokey.

A foetus is not yet alive, it isn't dead (because it hasn't BEEN alive). What it IS, is 'not alive'.


So sufficating someone isnt killing them. Its "not keeping them alive" as it removes the life support of air?


It depends. If you were to lock yourself in a room, and required someone to keep bringing you airtanks everyday, and they couldn't make it... I wouldn't have thought they'd get charged with murder.


No, because we are keeping them alive. By that logic, we are playing God when we breathe as we are keeping ourselves alive.


Bollocks. The person on artificial respiration SHOULD be dead.... they can no longer breathe.

If we give THAT person breath, we are keeping someone who SHOULD BE 'dead', alive.

If THAT isn't 'playing God', then I don't know HOW you justify your description.


It is a metaphor Grave. Saying that aborting an embryo is like removing the life support machine of someone who is comatose but whom we know will be ok in 9 months time. IT IS A METAPHOR. Understand.

I think it's an allegory, actually.... and a weak one at that.

No, because as I have explained sperm and egg are not part of the life cycle of a human.

Now THAT is an interesting new direction....

Let me just clarify what you are saying here. Suposing a clone is made of John, whose parents are Sarah and Henry. The clone's embryo is implanted inside Jane. Does this then mean that the baby will form a maternal bond with Jane (the mother in the sense of the woman who carried the child) or Sarah (the mother in the sense of genetics)

Both, either or neither, depending on how John is raised.

Yes, which in order to accept one has to not understand the life cycle. The life cycle is just that a cycle. It's like talking about the cycle of rain and ignoring evaporation arbitrarily. Here is the cycle (it can actually start anywhere). Adult, gametes, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult, and so on. It also includes all in between stages. A cylce includes the entire cycle. You can't simply leave a stage out because it hurts your argument.

I am not leaving it out because it hurts my arguement. I am leaving it out because it doesnt make sense to it. The sperm and the egg do not fit into the specification that I have made earlier. They do not develop as the embryo. They create the embryo but they themselves are not it. They are part of another life form. They are part of the cycle, but not part of the embryo. The embryo's life isnt a cycle, its a line. The human speicies population cycle however is a cycle. But it can be divided up into specific entities. The sperm and the egg are the stage in the parents life where they reproduce, not the first stages of the embyro. They create the embryo, but they themselves are not the embryo.


Yes, they will either die or become an embryo. The embryo will either die or become a fetus. The fetus will either die or become a baby. These are the only choices, just like every other stage of the cycle. In each stage of the cycle you can ONLY go forward. The last stage (adulthood) is unique in every life cycle because the adult organism both dies and creates the gametes. The creation of the gametes is really the only stage is not just a continuation of the previous stage. It's really the only place where you could argue breaking the cycle but you aren't even doing that. To not include gametes in the cycle you must break the connection between the parent and the embryo and it would not be a cycle.

The Gammetes are the propety of the parent, not the child.

"Pro-Choice: What is your logic?"

I can't justify telling some woman that she has to have a baby, OR that she has to have an abortion. Ergo, it's her choice! DUH? :p

While that's perfectly obvious to you and me, some people in this thread require arguments as to why women should get any more rights than a life-support machine.

You're right. You're uneducated. At the point of most abortions there is no body and no baby. Like you said, I don't know anyone without a body so it was not anyone. It was not someone. It was an embryo that never became anyone or someone and never reached the point of having a body.

No one is claiming it's not human so you can take that one of the table. No one has ever been born with a heart that wasn't human. Yep, it's human. What's your point?

So what is a body then? Last I checked if there's a physical side to a living being's existence, that's the body. The embyro is physical and there is a living being and the embryo is the living being's body.

And while we're on the topic of being uneducated, it didn't take much brainpower to realize "it's human" is my point exactly.

Mary did consent. Havent you read the verse.

Indeed.... verses, please?

I'd say you misunderstood the word 'soul', but that's nothing special... the real Hebrew meaning has long been lost on most.

You make the assertion that the 'soul' is in the flesh at conception.

I say: prove it.

I also say - if this is true, which twin gets the soul?

The good one, of course. Don't you know that there's always an evil twin and a good twin?

Mary did consent. Havent you read the verse.

Wow, you're having a little trouble being consistent. Do you just disagree with anyone that doesn't support you. Right now she was asked and consented. Because if she had no choice she cannot consent. I'm glad that I was born, but I did not consent to it.

Mary wanted it to be as God willed. It wasnt going to be any other way. There is no indication that Mary was given a choice

Oops, wait. She had no choice? She had a choice? Which is it?

You're no more consistent on the Bible than you are in your anti-choice arguments. You really need to keep track of everything you say. We aren't just comparing your statements to the last page, but to all pages. If you don't believe something to be true don't say it. This will keep your arguments consistent. If you argue just to win and say anything that supports your case you will be caught time and again being inconsistent as you are now.

And in making that womb vacent she is killing the embryo. Her womb is not the only one in issue here.


No - but her womb IS the paramount issue.


So basicly your saying that because we dont have the technology to extract the embryo and give it somewhere else to live it is right to abort it. No that is wrong.


Slow up, skippy. Try reading my posts.

Because there is no way to save it, it's basically 'tough-shit' for the conceptus. I didn't say it 'makes it okay', or that it was 'because' of our tech.

It is 'right' to remove the foetus, because a woman has dominion over her own internals. It is unfortunate that we can't (yet) assert that right without wasting genetic material.


It may not wish any ill to the conceptus but that doesnt mean it doesnt cause it ill. Ever heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Yes. And, it isn't relevent here.

So what is a body then? Last I checked if there's a physical side to a living being's existence, that's the body. The embyro is physical and there is a living being and the embryo is the living being's body.

Really? So you argue that it's an entity because it has a body and it has a body because it is an entity. Circular argument. You can't use that it's a living being to prove it's a living being.

And while we're on the topic of being uneducated, it didn't take much brainpower to realize "it's human" is my point exactly.

No one argues it's not human, they argue that it is not yet a human being. My hand is human, is it a human being? I understood your point, but you were arguing a strawman, a point that no one has ever argued that is on the side you are contesting. You made it up. Now, would you like to make any points not based on strawmen and circular arguments or are we done here?

She didn't really have a choice. From what I recall, it was presented as pretty much a fait accompli. SHe had the choice of say 'yay'... or tough shit, she was up-the-duff anyway.

Swearing is a sign of a lack of intellegence and vocabulary.

Can you prove that?


I think you are confused. I am conscious, now. I am less conscious when asleep.

But, awake or asleep, I HAVE 'consciousness'.

And suppose you are unconsious but could be brought round given 9 months help? If I killed you in those 9 months would it be murder?


Will you please read my posts? I have shown at least twice, that your living/dead/inanimate idea is hokey.

A foetus is not yet alive, it isn't dead (because it hasn't BEEN alive). What it IS, is 'not alive'.

Dont make up new definitions to suit your purposes. It is either dead, alive, or inanimate. There are no other scientific states of existance. Dont pretend like there are.


It depends. If you were to lock yourself in a room, and required someone to keep bringing you airtanks everyday, and they couldn't make it... I wouldn't have thought they'd get charged with murder.

Agreed, but that isnt annalogous with pregnancy or abortion. For one the embryo did not put itself in that position, as your person in the locked room did. Secondly the mother can bring the resorces nessecary to the person, so the cant bring the airtanks idea is wrong.


Bollocks. The person on artificial respiration SHOULD be dead.... they can no longer breathe.

If we give THAT person breath, we are keeping someone who SHOULD BE 'dead', alive.

If THAT isn't 'playing God', then I don't know HOW you justify your description.

No, they can breathe, just with help. My description of playing God is choosing when someone dies. No one has that right.


I think it's an allegory, actually.... and a weak one at that.

I see. Can you elaboratre as to why

I am not leaving it out because it hurts my arguement. I am leaving it out because it doesnt make sense to it. The sperm and the egg do not fit into the specification that I have made earlier.

That you made up and has not biological or logical basis.

They do not develop as the embryo.

No, they develop into the embryo under the right circumstances. Just like the embryo developes into the fetus under the right circumstances and so on.

They create the embryo but they themselves are not it. They are part of another life form. They are part of the cycle, but not part of the embryo.

Whoops. Now they are part of the cycle and before they weren't. More logical inconsistency. Should I be surprised.

The embryo's life isnt a cycle, its a line. The human speicies population cycle however is a cycle. But it can be divided up into specific entities. The sperm and the egg are the stage in the parents life where they reproduce, not the first stages of the embyro. They create the embryo, but they themselves are not the embryo.

What? They are part of the reproductive cycle just like the embryo is but they are not part of the embryo's cycle that it doesn't have? You should really re-read that and try to make it coherent.

The Gammetes are the propety of the parent, not the child.
Agreed. The embryo is the property of the woman not the child. Because in both cases they are completely contained within the body of a person and the child does not yet exist. The first true statement you've made. Here's a cookie.

Can you prove that?


And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

And when she saw [him], she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

From Luke 1:28-31

It doesn't say anything about a choice.

Really? So you argue that it's an entity because it has a body and it has a body because it is an entity. Circular argument. You can't use that it's a living being to prove it's a living being.

No one argues it's not human, they argue that it is not yet a human being. My hand is human, is it a human being? I understood your point, but you were arguing a strawman, a point that no one has ever argued that is on the side you are contesting. You made it up. Now, would you like to make any points not based on strawmen and circular arguments or are we done here?

My point from the start has been that while ultimately there are unfortunate reasons for abortion, there is a living being in question that certainly has a right to live and that right should not be denied easily. I fail to see how that's a made-up point. I have even tried dumbing it down for you.
So I'm concluding either you're very heartless and have no concern for human life or are just too stupid to understand logic no matter how simple it is. So I'm just done arguing. I'm not comming back to this topic because I know all you'll do is make up random crap about my posts and I'm looking for a debate based around facts rather than who can discredit who better.

Mary wanted it to be as God willed. It wasnt going to be any other way. There is no indication that Mary was given a choice

Of course, if she had refused, she wouldn't be in the bible at all, would she? But she accepted it. There's no indication God would've forced her if she said no.

So blood donation is stealing?

If they pick me up from the street and drag me to the lab to take my blood, it's stealing and kidnapping. If I give consent, of course not. Stealing is taking something from a person without consent.

Eating is stealing since it takes the nutrients from the food and you use them?

Food can be stolen, but it can't be stolen from. Food isn't a person, doesn't have rights. But if I take this food from someone who meant to eat it, yes, it is stealing. Again, you depersonify women.

And lets remember my point from earlier. You do not have the right to cut off someones access to the only supply of food they have to keep them alive.

Says you. If the food is mine, I don't have to share it with anyone.

Of course there is a right to a body. But which one would be loosing it more. The woman if she is pregnant, or the embryo if its aborted.

It's not about "loosing(sic) it more", the woman isn't obligated to lose anything.

She does not have the right to destroy the embryo

According to you.

You miss my point. What you are saying is that a disease is eqivelnet to abortion. That is not the case. Just because we do not have the technology now to remove an embryo from a mother without killing it, does not make it right that we kill it now. In the same way it would not be right for us to kill someone with a non-lethal disease. Of course it is not good that people die from lethal diseases now but there is nothing we can do. But in the case of preganacy there is something we can do. IE nothing. If we do nothing in many cases both mother and embryo will live. The embryo may die naturally which is sad but nothing we can do about it.

First off, there's no "lethal disease" and "non-lethal disease", there's only diseases we currently have a cure for and the ones we don't. Today we don't have a "cure" for pregnancy that isn't lethal for the embryo, so it can be classified as a "lethal disease", in which the only cure for the woman is abortion. One day that might change, but we have to work with what we have now.

If there is a comatose patinet who we know is going to be ok in 9 months time, but in the meantime needs to be on a life support machine, removing the machine would be killing him.

Again depersonifying women. Machines don't have rights. Women have rights. Also, doctors have no way of knowing when comatose patients will wake up, and people in comas get unplugged all the time. This analogy is useless.

No - but her womb IS the paramount issue.

More so than the embryo's existance. That frankly is sick. Would you rather loose control of one of your internal organs for 9 months or die?



Because there is no way to save it, it's basically 'tough-shit' for the conceptus. I didn't say it 'makes it okay', or that it was 'because' of our tech..

The fact that you are willing to say "tough-s***" to the conceptus suggests that you think its right to do so. You are implying that untill we have the technology to make it so we dont have to do that that it is morally aceptable to abort the fetus.


It is 'right' to remove the foetus, because a woman has dominion over her own internals. It is unfortunate that we can't (yet) assert that right without wasting genetic material.

She doent have the right to abuse that right with someone elses existance.

It doesn't say anything about a choice.

And nor does it say anything about Mary disagreeing.

And nor does it say anything about Mary disagreeing.

Without choice, there is little use in disagreing, is there?

If I take a shotgun and go to a store, point the gun at the clerk and say: "I'm going to rob your shop", then the poor fellow has actually little choice. If the clerk says, "Go ahead", it's still robbery.

He could of course say, "I don't want you to rob my store", but we all know what happens to people who disagree with god. Is there actually someone in the Bible who disagrees with God and does not got cursed along with his family over several generations?

My point from the start has been that while ultimately there are unfortunate reasons for abortion, there is a living being in question that certainly has a right to live and that right should not be denied easily. I fail to see how that's a made-up point.
And once again you fail to see the point in front of your face in the post. No one is denying that an embryo is not alive they are talking about wheter or not an embryo or fetus can be considered a person.

I have even tried dumbing it down for you. So I'm concluding either you're very heartless and have no concern for human life or are just too stupid to understand logic no matter how simple it is. So I'm just done arguing. I'm not comming back to this topic because I know all you'll do is make up random crap about my posts and I'm looking for a debate based around facts rather than who can discredit who better.
Nice Ad hominem attack. Instead of talking about the arguement you attack the poster. I have to say if this is the calibur of your posts I'm glad your not comming back.

Without choice, there is little use in disagreing, is there?

If I take a shotgun and go to a store, point the gun at the clerk and say: "I'm going to rob your shop", then the poor fellow has actually little choice. If the clerk says, "Go ahead", it's still robbery.

He could of course say, "I don't want you to rob my store", but we all know what happens to people who disagree with god. Is there actually someone in the Bible who disagrees with God and does not got cursed along with his family over several generations?

God didnt "point a gun" so to speek at Marys head. He already knew that she would accept. He wouldnt have chosen her if she would have been unwilling.

Without choice, there is little use in disagreing, is there?

If I take a shotgun and go to a store, point the gun at the clerk and say: "I'm going to rob your shop", then the poor fellow has actually little choice. If the clerk says, "Go ahead", it's still robbery.

He could of course say, "I don't want you to rob my store", but we all know what happens to people who disagree with god. Is there actually someone in the Bible who disagrees with God and does not got cursed along with his family over several generations?
Moses!
He lost his right to go to the Promised land, but he wasn't cursed.

But than he was Prophet. I think when your prophet you are allowed.

I'm going to end this argument once and for all.

Abortions are legal up to the 2nd trimester, because after that a baby is able to survive on its own. Before this time, it is nothing but a parasite and so the woman has a right to do whatever. Morning sickness is basically the mother trying to throw up the parasite. For the religious side, there is an almighty seperation of church and state people dont seem to care about anymore.

The only argument against this is religious and or moral, and therefore has no validity in federal affairs.

If they pick me up from the street and drag me to the lab to take my blood, it's stealing and kidnapping. If I give consent, of course not. Stealing is taking something from a person without consent.

Fair point.


Says you. If the food is mine, I don't have to share it with anyone.

Lets say there is a person who is dieing of a disease. You are a drug company and you have the cure for that disease, but you refuse to give it to them. Without that cure they are certian to die. Are you not killing them.


It's not about "loosing(sic) it more", the woman isn't obligated to lose anything.

She is obligated to give up control of her body for a limited time so that the embryo can live.


According to you.

According to logic. We have allready pointed out that the embryo is neither alive, dead or inanimate. So what is it. I can anwer. It is human. Thus it has the right to exist.


First off, there's no "lethal disease" and "non-lethal disease", there's only diseases we currently have a cure for and the ones we don't. Today we don't have a "cure" for pregnancy that isn't lethal for the embryo, so it can be classified as a "lethal disease", in which the only cure for the woman is abortion. One day that might change, but we have to work with what we have now.

That is wrong and you know it. Pregnacy is not nessecarly lethal for the mother. Hence it does not need to be cured. If both mother and embryo can live there is no reason why they shouldnt. Lets say there was a disease that was not leathal but in order to be cure of it you would need to kill someone. Does that give you the right to kill that person if you are infected with it.


Again depersonifyinf women. Machines don't have rights. Women have rights. Also, doctors have no way of knowing when comatose patients will wake up, and people in comas get unplugged all the time. This analogy is useless.

Its a hypotheical situation. IE If there was a comatose patinet whom we knew would be alright in 9 months but till then needed a life support machine, would you be killing him if you pulled the plug.

The embryo is not hers. It belongs to itself. If she was just making a decision about her womb she would be entitled to make whatever decsion she wanted to. But she isnt. She is not making the decision in a vaccum. She is not the only one being affected. It is unacceptable to allow one person to make those kinds of decisions about someone elses existance. It is just wrong.

Then no one can make any decision at all. It's foolish to think our decisions don't affect anyone down the line, we're all in the same planet, breathing the same air. Every decision every person makes, as personal as it may be, can affect someone somewhere. They still have the right to make it.

I'm going to end this argument once and for all.

Abortions are legal up to the 2nd trimester, because after that a baby is able to survive on its own. Before this time, it is nothing but a parasite and so the woman has a right to do whatever. Morning sickness is basically the mother trying to throw up the parasite. For the religious side, there is an almighty seperation of church and state people dont seem to care about anymore.

The only argument against this is religious and or moral, and therefore has no validity in federal affairs.

Wrong. It may be a parasite but that parasite is human and thus deserves protection.

God didnt "point a gun" so to speek at Marys head. He already knew that she would accept. He wouldnt have chosen her if she would have been unwilling.

The shotgun was just a symbol for God's powers.

Still, he didn't give her a choice and she only consented because she knew that she had no choice.

AND she didn't have an orgasm. :mad:

EDIT: But I guess that's enough thread highjacking. :)

I think we should abort only after the baby is born and the babies aborted should be chosen randomly.

Then no one can make any decision at all. It's foolish to think our decisions don't affect anyone down the line, we're all in the same planet, breathing the same air. Every decision every person makes, as personal as it may be, can affect someone somewhere. They still have the right to make it.

I agree but no one has the right to make a decision that someone else will die unless it is the kill or be killed situation. Death penalty is wrong, abortion is wrong, euthinasia is wrong because all centre around humans choosing when to terminate a humans existance.

No, because Mary wanted to obey God.

Exactly. She wanted to.

-snip blather-

It is a metaphor Grave. Saying that aborting an embryo is like removing the life support machine of someone who is comatose but whom we know will be ok in 9 months time. IT IS A METAPHOR. Understand.

We're not using metaphores here, we're using analogies. The coma patient one is not applicable.

Not on this scale. I do not have the right to determine whether or not you continue to exist.

Whenever you don't donate all your money to feed people in Africa, dozens of people die! How dare you own any personal belongings or money at all!!!

"God is dead"
-Nietzsche

Whenever you don't donate all your money to feed people in Africa, dozens of people die! How dare you own any personal belongings or money at all!!!

Yes, nice use of extremes there. I am talking about a direct decision to end a human existance. Not an unconsious chain of events.

"God is dead"
-Nietzsche

Care to even attempt to prove that?

Mary did consent. Havent you read the verse.

Oh good, then, you agree.

I know an easy way to eliminate hunger, aids, and war in Africa. Just nuke it.
What problem can violence not solve? It is the ONLY answer.

To be honest, nope. From what I know he send an angel to tell her that she will carry his son. Not much of a choice involved there.

But if you like, post the according verses.

He did, I helped. it's just a few pages back, I think.

We're not using metaphores here, we're using analogies. The coma patient one is not applicable.

Fine. There is someone in hosptial who is in a condition that needs a strict drug treatment regieme that lasts for 9 months. If he doesnt recieve those drugs he needs he will die. After those 9 months he will be fine. If you intentionally stop that supply of drugs getting to him, you are killing him, are you not?

Lets say there is a person who is dieing of a disease. You are a drug company and you have the cure for that disease, but you refuse to give it to them. Without that cure they are certian to die. Are you not killing them.

A Libertarian/Strict Republican Govt would say: Screw em'. You have no right to take my stuff. I might sell it, but not free.
How much is it worth to ya?


She is obligated to give up control of her body for a limited time so that the embryo can live.

She doesn't remember signing that contract. Do you have it writing?

According to logic. We have allready pointed out that the embryo is neither alive, dead or inanimate. So what is it. I can anwer. It is human. Thus it has the right to exist.

Dead humans don't have rights. So just being human isn't: it must be proven in court to be living. Once it develops a heart and brain you can prove that (Abortion banned at this time usually). Till than...nope.

That is wrong and you know it. Pregnacy is not nessecarly lethal for the mother. Hence it does not need to be cured. If both mother and embryo can live there is no reason why they shouldnt. Lets say there was a disease that was not leathal but in order to be cure of it you would need to kill someone. Does that give you the right to kill that person if you are infected with it.

You said ask a Doctor if Pregnancy is possible lethal. Even now with all our technology it still can be. My brother is a doctor: I've talked to him in the past about it.

Someone or some living human? If I have to kill a elf (no human rights) or a dolphine (almost as smart as us) I might. Can the vaccine be obtained any other way? Does it require you to extract while alive or dead?


Its a hypotheical situation. IE If there was a comatose patinet whom we knew would be alright in 9 months but till then needed a life support machine, would you be killing him if you pulled the plug.

Um, we can't know if anyone will be okay in 9 months. Comatose people can awake anytime: could be 70 years later right before they die of old age.

Define "alright"... Do you mean 9 months till they awaken?

No, but than he isn't being supported by my body. The Fetus would be if I was pregnant (and a girl obviously).

Oh good, then, you agree.

I lost track of that one slightly. I got rather confused there.

First of all can you prove it? Second the burden of proof is the one who makes the claim. Such as "God exists." Finally I consider it first principle that he does not exist.

Murder is far more than a legal term. It is a moral one. The killing of a person without legitmate cause.

le·git·i·mate Audio pronunciation of "legitimate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-jt-mt)
adj.

1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.

It's a legal term.

Murder should be mandatory.

i think a woman has the choice weather or not a potential human life lives or not up until the point whear the baby can live without the need of its mothers umbilical chord, until then i think the baby is part of the mothers body and a womans body and that it should not have to be part of law.
i worry that this pro life debate is being discussed more than ever now because of the american government\christian influence, a famously sexist and old fasion society has no place in such an issue.....ever.

It may not wish any ill to the conceptus but that doesnt mean it doesnt cause it ill. Ever heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I guess the road was too long and people want to bring hell closer...

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

It is not religious, or a peronal moral question. It is a matter of justice, and whether you would want 3 million humans killed every year. Those innocent babies could grow up to be people, regardless of whether you call them "humans" or not. You cannot deny the fact that they will someday be a person. Should a mother have the right to snatch away the life of an embryo? I don't think so.

I think no one should make any choices unless they pass an IQ test and score at least 110. The people scoring under would become slaves to the ones who passed.

It's a legal term.

I didnt say it wasnt. I said it was more than a legal term, IE not just a legal term.

http://www.answers.com/topic/murder

To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce

Emphisis added

All law should be illegal.

First of all can you prove it? Second the burden of proof is the one who makes the claim. Such as "God exists." Finally I consider it first principle that he does not exist.

He made the claim "God is dead" therefore it is up to him to prove it. The burden of proof is with him

[QUOTE=Agnostor]All law should be illegal.[/sQUOTE]
your a bit of a anarchistarnt you.(the destustive stereotype not the socioanarchic (actual meaning of the word)type)

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.

I am still appalled at how close-minded people like you are. :headbang:
usually their own damn fault? are you out of your mind? :rolleyes:
you might as well say the same for any person who gets some type of infectious disease (not including STDs).
you absolutely disgust me. :mp5:

--

You are if you're Catholic. Onanism and all that. "Ev'ry Sperm Is Sacred."

if a person believes that is true, then every time a woman gets her period and the egg goes unfertilized and is expunged from her body, then she's murdering that, too, right...

It is not religious, or a peronal moral question. It is a matter of justice, and whether you would want 3 million humans killed every year. Those innocent babies could grow up to be people, regardless of whether you call them "humans" or not. You cannot deny the fact that they will someday be a person. Should a mother have the right to snatch away the life of an embryo? I don't think so.

Babies=born
Fetus=-unborn
Embryos=un-dead

Learn your terms. :p

I am still appalled at how close-minded people like you are. :headbang:
usually their own damn fault? are you out of your mind? :rolleyes:
you might as well say the same for any person who gets some type of infectious disease (not including STDs).
you absolutely disgust me. :mp5:

--



if a person believes that is true, then every time a woman gets her period and the egg goes unfertilized and is expunged from her body, then she's murdering that, too, right...
your cool i like you

Indeed.... verses, please?

One more time, from the top:

Luke 1:26-38 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Babies=born
Fetus=-unborn
Enmbryos=un-dead

Learn your terms. :p

Un-dead is not a scientific term. The three existance states are dead, alive or inanimate. An embryo is not dead seing as how its cells are alive and not dying and it is growing/developing. It is not inanimate seeing as how it is growing and developing. And it is not alive seeing as how it cannot respond to external stimuli. So what is it? The answer is that it is human. It has its own DNA which is unique to its mother. It is growing and developing in the way a human does and it is its own entity. Humans have the right to exist. Thus it should be allowed to continue to exist. Lets not have you making up terms like "Undead" to suit your needs.

i think a woman has the choice weather or not a potential human life lives or not up until the point whear the baby can live without the need of its mothers umbilical chord, until then i think the baby is part of the mothers body and a womans body and that it should not have to be part of law.
i worry that this pro life debate is being discussed more than ever now because of the american government\christian influence, a famously sexist and old fasion society has no place in such an issue.....ever.

My point from the start has been that while ultimately there are unfortunate reasons for abortion, there is a living being in question that certainly has a right to live and that right should not be denied easily. I fail to see how that's a made-up point. I have even tried dumbing it down for you.
So I'm concluding either you're very heartless and have no concern for human life or are just too stupid to understand logic no matter how simple it is. So I'm just done arguing. I'm not comming back to this topic because I know all you'll do is make up random crap about my posts and I'm looking for a debate based around facts rather than who can discredit who better.

You're the one trying to make women forced to suffer through pregnancy and he's the one who's heartless?? The hell...

One more time, from the top:

I got a little confused about our disucssion of this as diffent people asked me diffrent questions. She was not raped seing as God chose her to be the mother of Jesus and in doing so he chose someone who he knew would accept. He did give her a choice, but she had already made it.

God didnt "point a gun" so to speek at Marys head. He already knew that she would accept. He wouldnt have chosen her if she would have been unwilling.

Again you agree that she was willing. Your God doesn't force a woman to bear His child, but you think it's right for you to force it?? Are you greater than your God?

I'm going to end this argument once and for all.

Abortions are legal up to the 2nd trimester, because after that a baby is able to survive on its own. Before this time, it is nothing but a parasite and so the woman has a right to do whatever. Morning sickness is basically the mother trying to throw up the parasite. For the religious side, there is an almighty seperation of church and state people dont seem to care about anymore.

The only argument against this is religious and or moral, and therefore has no validity in federal affairs.

It's great that you're pro-choice and we agree that the fetus is a parasite, but none of the previous "this is the end of the discussion" posts worked before. I doubt this one will.

Again you agree that she was willing. Your God doesn't force a woman to bear His child, but you think it's right for you to force it?? Are you greater than your God?

He didnt "force" her. He knew that she would be willing and thus chose her. You are making a confusion here between rape and making abortion illegal. To force someone to carry your child is rape and wrong. To force someone to not have an abortion is to make them not murder and is thus right. And before you pick me up on my use of the word murder I have already defended it fully.

Swearing is a sign of a lack of intellegence and vocabulary.

{edited parts unnecessary to my reply}

No, they can breathe, just with help. My description of playing God is choosing when someone dies. No one has that right.



Swearing is not a sign of lack of intelligence*** (learn how to spell. talk about signs of lack of intelligence...) and vocabulary.
actually, I don't believe there is such a thing as "swearing." if you want to get all fundamentalistic and religious about it, things Jesus said have been translated to things such as today's modern "shit."
There is a time and place for every word. It's society/culture that has made it "bad" for people to use "swear" words...the same society/culture that has made it acceptable for people to worship Hollywood actors & actresses and the same society/culture that believes in general that you have to look somewhat anorexic to be considered gorgeous. it's all fucked up.

and, I disagree with you about the "playing God" thing, as you put it. EVERYONE has the right to "play God" - also known as TO CHOOSE whether or not to do something. that is one of the ultimate things God gave us - FREEDOM of CHOICE.

so if you're saying no one has the right to choose, then you might as well say that God was stupid to even give us the option, because we don't have the "right" to use it anyway. afterall, you're probably more intelligent than God, right, so people like you should impose on the rest of the world what we can and can't CHOOSE to do.

get out from underneath your little hiding place and see the truth for what it really is. stupid fuck.

what next...the gov't is going to take away our right to choose what clothes we can and cannot wear, what type of potatos we're allowed to make with dinner, what kind of car we can or cannot buy, what school we can or cannot send our children to, what we can or cannot say...?

where does it stop? and when will these extremist people just shut the hell up and mind their own damn business?


ahhh...I feel better now! :D

your cool trixxie i waana have sex wid you

your cool trixxie i waana have sex wid you


err...thanks but no thanks. I'm already in a very long-term relationship with my partner, as well as my sex toys. but thanks anyway. lol

and, I disagree with you about the "playing God" thing, as you put it. EVERYONE has the right to "play God" - also known as TO CHOOSE whether or not to do something. that is one of the ultimate things God gave us - FREEDOM of CHOICE.

(Before I continue this, I should point out that my arguement against abortion comes from ethics, not faith. This person is however making a post about faith so I will defend my faith now)

God gave us the right to choose yes, but that doesnt mean he allows sin because we are able to do it.


so if you're saying no one has the right to choose, then you might as well say that God was stupid to even give us the option, because we don't have the "right" to use it anyway. afterall, you're probably more intelligent than God, right, so people like you should impose on the rest of the world what we can and can't CHOOSE to do.

In the case of sin, we have the ability to sin but that doesnt make it right

(Before I continue this, I should point out that my arguement against abortion comes from ethics, not faith. This person is however making a post about faith so I will defend my faith now)

God gave us the right to choose yes, but that doesnt mean he allows sin because we are able to do it.



In the case of sin, we have the ability to sin but that doesnt make it right
How is there a difference between your ethics and your faith? What are some examples which you consider to be ethical that are not in line with your faith?

Fair point.

Thank you.

Lets say there is a person who is dieing of a disease. You are a drug company and you have the cure for that disease, but you refuse to give it to them. Without that cure they are certian to die. Are you not killing them.

The company is a greedy bastard (and most are, and they do, in fact, refuse to donate medicine to the needy), but it didn't cause the disease.

She is obligated to give up control of her body for a limited time so that the embryo can live.

No one is obligated to give up anything so that another may live. Not their personal property and most definitely not their bodies.

According to logic. We have allready pointed out that the embryo is neither alive, dead or inanimate. So what is it. I can anwer. It is human. Thus it has the right to exist.

You might have noticed that I have refrained from joining the biology side of the debate. I have no deep knowledge of it. For the sake of the argument, I've been willing to concede to a just-formed embryo all the rights of a grown person. This is one thing I'm doing differently from all the other posters, I think.

Having the right to exist doesn't give it the right to be inside anyone's body, no matter how much it needs it.

That is wrong and you know it. Pregnacy is not nessecarly lethal for the mother. Hence it does not need to be cured. If both mother and embryo can live there is no reason why they shouldnt. Lets say there was a disease that was not leathal but in order to be cure of it you would need to kill someone. Does that give you the right to kill that person if you are infected with it.

The person infected with pregnancy is the woman. We don't kill the woman for having that disease, we remove the parasite. Some people argue that the species of the parasite is somehow special, so it shouldn't be killed. Fine, we'll try not to hurt it. But the woman must be cured regardless of whether or not the parasite survives.

Its a hypotheical situation. IE If there was a comatose patinet whom we knew would be alright in 9 months but till then needed a life support machine, would you be killing him if you pulled the plug.

*le sigh*

Again, from the top. We can't know if or when a person in a coma will wake up. That alone makes your analogy crumble. Second, a machine doesn't have any rights, if it did and it didn't want that comatose person plugged into it, we could bring a different machine, one that wanted a comatose patient to take care of, and switch. Unfortunately our technology doesn't allow us to change fetuses from one womb to another. Thirdly, comatose patients are unplugged all the time. They might've woken up the next day, we'll never know. But the family gets tired of holding the person back, they believe they're keeping the patient's soul from going to heaven or whatever, so they pull the plug. Or worse, the patient's health insurance runs out and the hospital doesn't want to keep people that aren't paying for their beds. Plug pulled.

Give up that analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trixxie
and, I disagree with you about the "playing God" thing, as you put it. EVERYONE has the right to "play God" - also known as TO CHOOSE whether or not to do something. that is one of the ultimate things God gave us - FREEDOM of CHOICE.
Originally Posted by Trixxie
so if you're saying no one has the right to choose, then you might as well say that God was stupid to even give us the option, because we don't have the "right" to use it anyway. afterall, you're probably more intelligent than God, right, so people like you should impose on the rest of the world what we can and can't CHOOSE to do.


(Before I continue this, I should point out that my arguement against abortion comes from ethics, not faith. This person is however making a post about faith so I will defend my faith now)

God gave us the right to choose yes, but that doesnt mean he allows sin because we are able to do it.

In the case of sin, we have the ability to sin but that doesnt make it right


it also doesn't mean he allows people to make choices for other people, which is what pro-lifers are trying to do for pro-choicers.

as for sin, we all do it, yes. it's not a matter of "allowing" us to do so. we are inept, unperfect beings when it comes to comparison with God.
and as we have the ability to do it, no it doesn't make it right to do so.
same as with choice. we have the ability to choose but it doesn't make all our choices right.

also, just because one has the right to choose, doesn't make it right to attempt to impose one's choice upon another person.

while we're on the topic, it is stated in the Bible that not one sin is greater than another. for Catholics, you have to do a helluva lot more "hail marys" or whatever if you murder someone than if you lie about something.
but I digress...that's another topic for another time.

I agree but no one has the right to make a decision that someone else will die unless it is the kill or be killed situation. Death penalty is wrong, abortion is wrong, euthinasia is wrong because all centre around humans choosing when to terminate a humans existance.

You realize that in euthanasia often the sick person is choosing for themselves, right? Not somone else.

We make decisions that kill other people everyday. Get out of your perfect world bubble. All over the world people are starving to death or dying of sickness they can't afford to get treated, and every one you could've helped but didn't, their blood is on your head.

Yes, nice use of extremes there. I am talking about a direct decision to end a human existance. Not an unconsious chain of events.

What is a "direct decision to end a human existence"? You know there are people starving. You know you could send money. You have money. You decide not to send it. That's a direct decision to me.

Fine. There is someone in hosptial who is in a condition that needs a strict drug treatment regieme that lasts for 9 months. If he doesnt recieve those drugs he needs he will die. After those 9 months he will be fine. If you intentionally stop that supply of drugs getting to him, you are killing him, are you not?

I have that same condition. I need those drugs as well. I don't have to give him my drugs.

I lost track of that one slightly. I got rather confused there.

You? Confused?? Noooooo, I don't believe it!

Honestly, Avalon, don't you think you should be able to keep track of your opinions in an internet forum before you have them turned into law?

You realize that in euthanasia often the sick person is choosing for themselves, right? Not somone else.

We make decisions that kill other people everyday. Get out of your perfect world bubble. All over the world people are starving to death or dying of sickness they can't afford to get treated, and every one you could've helped but didn't, their blood is on your head.
Yeah, euthanasia is never a good choice.
http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/the-story-of-a-noble-man-and-his-noble-mother/

Legal abortion as it stand now in the US does a quite commendable job of balancing rights between two entites, both human, both alive.

The law.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.



So abortion on demand until birth is one of the BIG LIES of the right.


Western civilization has an interest in keeping abortion legal in that a woman's ability to regulate the number of children she bears is vital to allowing women to be fully engaged members of society.

Making abortion illegal because of some perceived flippancy in the person getting the abortion just begs the question, considering how few mothers choose to carry a child for 9 months and then give it away, aren't we better off if loser moms can just abort, rather than raising the next generation of criminals?

Just a thought.

It is not religious, or a peronal moral question. It is a matter of justice, and whether you would want 3 million humans killed every year. Those innocent babies could grow up to be people, regardless of whether you call them "humans" or not. You cannot deny the fact that they will someday be a person. Should a mother have the right to snatch away the life of an embryo? I don't think so.

She's giving it life. It is alive because she sustains it. She doesn't have to keep sustaining it.

You realize that in euthanasia often the sick person is choosing for themselves, right? Not somone else.

If someone wanted euthinasia they are human and they want to terminate they're own existnce


We make decisions that kill other people everyday. Get out of your perfect world bubble. All over the world people are starving to death or dying of sickness they can't afford to get treated, and every one you could've helped but didn't, their blood is on your head.

Firstly, you dont know me. You don't know who I am or what I do so please dont assume that I dont help out such people.

Secondly, I am talking about intentionally decisions. If you intentionally decide to terminate someones existance it is diffrent from a decision you take that leads to someone elses death. If someone is in moral danger and you know for certian that you and only you can save that someones life and you can do it but refuse to, you have effectively killed them.

I didnt say it wasnt. I said it was more than a legal term, IE not just a legal term.

http://www.answers.com/topic/murder



Emphisis added

So you give up your claim that "the embryo has a right to life because of all those murder trials", right? Good.

What is a "direct decision to end a human existence"? You know there are people starving. You know you could send money. You have money. You decide not to send it. That's a direct decision to me.

A direct decision would be me selecting an individual and killing them. What you are sugeesting (intentionally refusing to give funds) is not nice, but its not killing

So you give up your claim that "the embryo has a right to life because of all those murder trials", right? Good.

No. You miss the point. There is a legal presendence for what I am asking for. There is not a legal presedence for what you are asking for. We are both asking for a change in the law, and as I have said arguing the law to prove your case for certian (IE the law says this therfore it is right) is pointless. However you can look at the law for a guidence. It seems to me that the way I wish to change the law is not as inconsistant as the way you would have it changed.

I got a little confused about our disucssion of this as diffent people asked me diffrent questions. She was not raped seing as God chose her to be the mother of Jesus and in doing so he chose someone who he knew would accept. He did give her a choice, but she had already made it.

So He did give her a choice! How nice of Him. How dare you take away a choice your God Himself gave?!

She's giving it life. It is alive because she sustains it. She doesn't have to keep sustaining it.

Yes she does because to stop sustaining it would be for it to die. Also I see you accept it is alive now. Good.

while we're on the topic, it is stated in the Bible that not one sin is greater than another. for Catholics, you have to do a helluva lot more "hail marys" or whatever if you murder someone than if you lie about something.
but I digress...that's another topic for another time.
I disagree: Blasphemying against the Holy Spirit is the greatest sin you can do. It is the one sin God holds Unfogiveable. And Jesus's Ex-disciplie Juda Iscariot is feeling that right now in Outer Darkness.
In order to qualify for this sin: You must be like the Devil and have perfect knowledge of all things regarding the gospel. And than turn from it. I can't understand the response one feels and why someone would do that: especially the Devil.
Judas Knew all, but he chose coin over eternal life. *sigh*

And to add insult to injury: he murdered himself creatng more sin. And now he is dead so he can't repent for it. Repentance is done during life.

He didnt "force" her. He knew that she would be willing and thus chose her. You are making a confusion here between rape and making abortion illegal. To force someone to carry your child is rape and wrong. To force someone to not have an abortion is to make them not murder and is thus right. And before you pick me up on my use of the word murder I have already defended it fully.

We agree that she had a choice. I no longer have a problem with that. My problem was your saying she didn't have a choice, which she obviously did, as you have admitted time and again. Your God is supposedly omniscient, so of course He'd know that she'd accept, but she accepted. She had a choice. Your God didn't take away her choice, like you're trying to do.

So He did give her a choice! How nice of Him. How dare you take away a choice your God Himself gave?!

You dont understand. The choice God gave her was not "you are pregnant, your choice now is to either have the child or abort it". It was "Do you want to be pregnant or not". He gives her the choice to be pregnant or not, but once pregnant she does not have the choice to end it. In otherwords he would not rape her, but he would not allow her the choice to have an abortion.

We agree that she had a choice. I no longer have a problem with that. My problem was your saying she didn't have a choice, which she obviously did, as you have admitted time and again. Your God is supposedly omniscient, so of course He'd know that she'd accept, but she accepted. She had a choice. Your God didn't take away her choice, like you're trying to do.

Again. God gave her the choice to be pregnant or not. What God did not do was give her the choice, once pregnant to abort the child or end its life.

In my religion: We are created in Heaven before we are created on earth. God therefote already informed and got Mary's permission in heaven before she was born.

However, we all forget our premortal life when we are born. So while God knew and had permission previously; he had to ask to make sure if she still wanted to go through with it after being pregnant.

Secondly, I am talking about intentionally decisions. If you intentionally decide to terminate someones existance it is diffrent from a decision you take that leads to someone elses death.

If I decide I want to eat and not share the nutrients in my blood with a parasite, that's not terminating its existence, it's just not sharing.

If someone is in moral danger and you know for certian that you and only you can save that someones life and you can do it but refuse to, you have effectively killed them.

It's a wonder you're still alive, Avalon, with morals like yours we'd think you'd have sacrificed yourself to save people long ago. Because morals are the only think that can compel self-sacrifice, not law.

i think a woman has the choice weather or not a potential human life lives or not up until the point whear the baby can live without the need of its mothers umbilical chord, until then i think the baby is part of the mothers body and a womans body and that it should not have to be part of law.
i worry that this pro life debate is being discussed more than ever now because of the american government\christian influence, a famously sexist and old fasion society has no place in such an issue.....ever.

that clever handsome guy is right

Again. God gave her the choice to be pregnant or not. What God did not do was give her the choice, once pregnant to abort the child or end its life.

If thats the case we wouldn't have free will to make that choice. Otherwise God did giver her a choice to abort the child.

A direct decision would be me selecting an individual and killing them. What you are sugeesting (intentionally refusing to give funds) is not nice, but its not killing

So I can intentionally refuse to give "funds" (nutrients) to alien creatures living in my womb. I'm not selecting an individual, I didn't pick it, I didn't ask for it. Somehow it found itself in me, and I don't have to share my food with it or let it stay inside my body. Like you said, it's not killing.

No. You miss the point. There is a legal presendence for what I am asking for. There is not a legal presedence for what you are asking for. We are both asking for a change in the law, and as I have said arguing the law to prove your case for certian (IE the law says this therfore it is right) is pointless. However you can look at the law for a guidence. It seems to me that the way I wish to change the law is not as inconsistant as the way you would have it changed.

The precendence is that, if I'm allowed to kill an intruder of my house (if I have to), I must also be allowed to kill an intruder of my body (if I have to). But you were saying you don't think that murder is a legal term. Obviously you were lying. Or are you still confused?

Yes she does because to stop sustaining it would be for it to die. Also I see you accept it is alive now. Good.

I never disputed that it's alive. You should do a little effort to keep track of your opponents.

And give me the "precedents" that say she is obligated to keep sustaining it.

Again. God gave her the choice to be pregnant or not. What God did not do was give her the choice, once pregnant to abort the child or end its life.

And she accepted being pregnant. A woman using birth control doesn't accept to be pregnant, but it's forced on her.

Swearing is a sign of a lack of intellegence and vocabulary.


Really? You think I lack vocabulary, perhaps? You are questioning my erudition?


And suppose you are unconsious but could be brought round given 9 months help? If I killed you in those 9 months would it be murder?


That really rather depends. Have I EVER been conscious? Or are we arguing about a mindless shell?


Dont make up new definitions to suit your purposes. It is either dead, alive, or inanimate. There are no other scientific states of existance. Dont pretend like there are.


I'm not. SHow me where the entire scientific community accepts your 'inanimate' option, perchance?


No, they can breathe, just with help. My description of playing God is choosing when someone dies. No one has that right.


By making someone breathe, who has not the capacity on their own... you ARE choosing when someone dies.... by putting it off.


I see. Can you elaboratre as to why

You can't tell the difference between an allegory and a metaphor? What am I going to tell you that might help here?

That really rather depends. Have I EVER been conscious? Or are we arguing about a mindless shell?

You have never been consious but given time you will be


I'm not. SHow me where the entire scientific community accepts your 'inanimate' option, perchance?

inanimate:
adjective
possessing none of the characteristics of life that an animal or plant has

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/inanimate

Since an embryo has some of the qualities of life it is not inanimate.


By making someone breathe, who has not the capacity on their own... you ARE choosing when someone dies.... by putting it off.


By that logic I am also playing God right now, by breathing. You know what I meant. Saying then "this person dies now". I am not choosing when someone dies by putting it off.

And she accepted being pregnant. A woman using birth control doesn't accept to be pregnant, but it's forced on her.

Not this again. I have dealt with this on a number of occations. She has to accpet to a posibility of becomoing pregnant because there is no 100% effective preventative birth control

I never disputed that it's alive. You should do a little effort to keep track of your opponents.

And give me the "precedents" that say she is obligated to keep sustaining it.

If the government imprisions someone it is obligated to provide said person with food and water. It cannot cut off the only source to food and water they have.

Not this again. I have dealt with this on a number of occations. She has to accpet to a posibility of becomoing pregnant because there is no 100% effective preventative birth control

Accepting the possibility does not equal accepting the outcome.

Not this again. I have dealt with this on a number of occations. She has to accpet to a posibility of becomoing pregnant because there is no 100% effective preventative birth control

Again, there is no 100% sure way to keep intruders from breaking into my house. Acceptance of sex is not acceptance of pregnancy.

I have that same condition. I need those drugs as well. I don't have to give him my drugs.

Thats not comparative for a pregancy. In a pregnancy a woman does not need the things she gives the embryo to live. If she did she would die by giving them to it. I say again.

There is a person in a condition in hosptial that requires a strict drug regieme treatment. That treatmenet will last for 9 months, after which it will be fine. It is murder if you intentionally decide to stop him recieving those drugs

More so than the embryo's existance. That frankly is sick.


I don't much care for your so-called morality. What I call sick, is the society that FORCES a woman to have a baby, and then leaves the poor thing to starve.


Would you rather loose control of one of your internal organs for 9 months or die?


This is just ridiculous. Your parallel should be all ONE entity, or all the OTHER. THis mix and match crap has got to go.


The fact that you are willing to say "tough-s***" to the conceptus suggests that you think its right to do so. You are implying that untill we have the technology to make it so we dont have to do that that it is morally aceptable to abort the fetus.


Actually... I very rarely say ANYTHING to concepta, 'tough shit' or otherwise.

I DO think it is 'right' though, sometimes. Personally, I'm GLAD that neither of mine have been aborted... but both times, the choice has not been mine to make.

And, don't tell ME what I am implying. You have a track record of missing the point. I think it would be morally acceptable to abort the foetus EVEN IF we had the technology... but it would no longer be NECESSARY.

Again, you miss the point.


She doent have the right to abuse that right with someone elses existance.

This is true.

ANd, the minute there is incontravertible evidence that 'someone' else is affected, I'll be sure to add that to my ruminations.

Wrong. It may be a parasite but that parasite is human and thus deserves protection.

In your OPINION.

You have a lot of opinions, my friend.

And, thus far, NOTHING to back them up.

If the government imprisions someone it is obligated to provide said person with food and water. It cannot cut off the only source to food and water they have.

Ah, but I didn't emprison the embryo in my womb. I took some very specific measures to keep it away from my womb. If someone breaks into my house, I have no obligation to keep them fed and watered, quite the contrary.

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

Yes. Once born, the child has full rights as any other person. Till then, the decision is the mother's and the mother's alone. Rights over one's body have their consequences, and the right of the mother over that of the unborn is one of them. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

Thats not comparative for a pregancy. In a pregnancy a woman does not need the things she gives the embryo to live. If she did she would die by giving them to it. I say again.

There is a person in a condition in hosptial that requires a strict drug regieme treatment. That treatmenet will last for 9 months, after which it will be fine. It is murder if you intentionally decide to stop him recieving those drugs

Yes I do need them! I can buy more drugs outside, but I do need them.

One more time, from the top:
Oh, indeed... however, it was Avalon who was going to prove it, wasn't it?

But, anyways...

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her".

Note - this is the CLOSING words of the discussion. The Angel turns up, and the FIRST thing he tells her, is that she is going to have god's baby.

Where is the choice?

For me, grim resignation is NOT equal to choice.

Again, there is no 100% sure way to keep intruders from breaking into my house. Acceptance of sex is not acceptance of pregnancy.

Yes, it is. You dont accept people comming into your house, but you can deal with it legiamately (IE without doing anything immoral/wrong). In the case of sex the only way to end a pregnancy short of birth is abortion. However the way to deal with burglars is to call the police. Calling the police does not mean ending a life or killing anyone. Abortion does. Thus when having sex a woman has to accept that if she does this and gets pregnant there is nothing she can do about it because of the nature of the pregnancy. Pregancy is in nature very diffrent to being robbed.

Un-dead is not a scientific term. The three existance states are dead, alive or inanimate.

Prove it.

Prove your 'three states' theory.

He didnt "force" her. He knew that she would be willing and thus chose her. You are making a confusion here between rape and making abortion illegal. To force someone to carry your child is rape and wrong. To force someone to not have an abortion is to make them not murder and is thus right. And before you pick me up on my use of the word murder I have already defended it fully.

So - if a rapist SAYS he only raped a woman, because he 'already knew she wanted it'... you'd accept that as a valid defense?

Yes. Once born, the child has full rights as any other person. Till then, the decision is the mother's and the mother's alone. Rights over one's body have their consequences, and the right of the mother over that of the unborn is one of them. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

Hail Eris!

Oh, indeed... however, it was Avalon who was going to prove it, wasn't it?

But, anyways...

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her".

Note - this is the CLOSING words of the discussion. The Angel turns up, and the FIRST thing he tells her, is that she is going to have god's baby.

Where is the choice?

For me, grim resignation is NOT equal to choice.

The choice is in being pregnant or not. God knew that Mary would accept which is why he chose her. The choice God gave her here however was whether or not to be pregnant. Not once being pregnant, whether or not to have an abortion.

ahhh...I feel better now! :D

You know what? So do I. :)

Thus when having sex a woman has to accept that if she does this and gets pregnant there is nothing she can do about it because of the nature of the pregnancy.

I'd like to know where this is codified into law because if not then its just your opinion.

She's giving it life. It is alive because she sustains it. She doesn't have to keep sustaining it.

Exactly.

Prove it.

Prove your 'three states' theory.

Excuse me, you were the one who said it is a scientific term

Alive- Having all the qualities of life
Inanimate- Having none of the qualities of life and never previously having them
Dead- Having none of the qualities of life, having previously had them.

You were the one who suggested that the embryo was in a 4th state "undead". You have to prove it. An embryo is none of these given that it has some of the qualites of life but not all. Thus the definiton it falls closest to is being alive.

Exactly.

Yes she does, because if she stops it is killing it. She doesnt have the right to kill it.

I disagree: Blasphemying against the Holy Spirit is the greatest sin you can do. It is the one sin God holds Unfogiveable. And Jesus's Ex-disciplie Juda Iscariot is feeling that right now in Outer Darkness.
In order to qualify for this sin: You must be like the Devil and have perfect knowledge of all things regarding the gospel. And than turn from it. I can't understand the response one feels and why someone would do that: especially the Devil.
Judas Knew all, but he chose coin over eternal life. *sigh*

And to add insult to injury: he murdered himself creatng more sin. And now he is dead so he can't repent for it. Repentance is done during life.

Just as an interesting side thought... doesn't this make Judas a bigger hero than even Jesus?

After all, it says in scripture that Judas loved Jesus... and he knew that he would be condemned for all eternity for betraying him...

And yet, when Jesus told him he would betray him, Judas accepted that - and sacrificed his mortla life, and the love of his dearest friend, to serve prophecy.

In comparison, Jesus got off light... he was due to be resurrected 72 hours later... and not facing an eternity of torture.

In your OPINION.

You have a lot of opinions, my friend.

And, thus far, NOTHING to back them up.

It is human for the following reasons:-

It has human DNA which is individual and diffrent that of its mother

It is its own entity

It is developing and growing as a human does

These points back up my arguement.

Yes, it is. You dont accept people comming into your house, but you can deal with it legiamately (IE without doing anything immoral/wrong). In the case of sex the only way to end a pregnancy short of birth is abortion. However the way to deal with burglars is to call the police. Calling the police does not mean ending a life or killing anyone. Abortion does. Thus when having sex a woman has to accept that if she does this and gets pregnant there is nothing she can do about it because of the nature of the pregnancy. Pregancy is in nature very diffrent to being robbed.

Let me explain the analogy to you:

1- I want a house
2- I don't want burglars, so I put locks on the doors, bars on the windows, alarms etc
3- A burglar gets past all my security
4- I call the cops
5- They struggle with the burglar and end up killing him, there was no other way

in relation to:

1- I want to have sex
2- I don't want to get pregnant, so I get on the pill, have my partner wear condoms etc
3- It still fails somehow, I get pregnant
4- I go to the doctor
5- He removes the embryo and ends up killing it, there was no other way.

Got it now?

You dont understand. The choice God gave her was not "you are pregnant, your choice now is to either have the child or abort it". It was "Do you want to be pregnant or not". He gives her the choice to be pregnant or not, but once pregnant she does not have the choice to end it. In otherwords he would not rape her, but he would not allow her the choice to have an abortion.

No - I suggest you get some help reading the scripture.

The messenger turns up, and tells Mary it is ALREADY on.

At the end, she accepts her fate.

But - of course, by then, the thing has been done.

He doesn't give her the choice "do you want to be pregnant or not".... and I challenge you to show me where Mary actually CHOOSES whether to be pregnant.

She is LEFT, at the end of the passage, with a choice to ACCEPT it or not. She's already up the duff.

It is human for the following reasons:-

It has human DNA which is individual and diffrent that of its mother

It is its own entity

It is developing and growing as a human does

These points back up my arguement.

I still haven't gotten a set of standards for what we consider a seperate entity yet. So until we have a set of those up we really haven't determined if its seperate yet.

Yes she does, because if she stops it is killing it. She doesnt have the right to kill it.

If "not sustaining" = "killing", you are killing everyone you don't sustain.

inanimate:
adjective
possessing none of the characteristics of life that an animal or plant has

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/inanimate

Since an embryo has some of the qualities of life it is not inanimate.


That was never a question.

Really, PLEASE read the posts BEFORE you hit the reply button.

Show me WHERE your 'inanimate' definition is accepted alongside 'living' and 'dead' as the three possible states of existence?



By that logic I am also playing God right now, by breathing. You know what I meant. Saying then "this person dies now". I am not choosing when someone dies by putting it off.

No - try to keep up.

If you ventilate someone who CANNOT BREATHE ON THIER OWN (I assume you can?) 0 then you are changing their fate from what is 'ordained' by their natural state.

Thus - by giving EXTRA life to someone, you are putting yourself in the position of God.

Just as an interesting side thought... doesn't this make Judas a bigger hero than even Jesus?

After all, it says in scripture that Judas loved Jesus... and he knew that he would be condemned for all eternity for betraying him...

And yet, when Jesus told him he would betray him, Judas accepted that - and sacrificed his mortla life, and the love of his dearest friend, to serve prophecy.

In comparison, Jesus got off light... he was due to be resurrected 72 hours later... and not facing an eternity of torture.

I always wondered about that.

Not this again. I have dealt with this on a number of occations. She has to accpet to a posibility of becomoing pregnant because there is no 100% effective preventative birth control

And yet, having sex is NOT the same as consenting to pregnancy.

Any more than eating food is consenting to choking.

I wonder if it would be possible for the Christian Right to believe that God, were He to exist, would not consider it a sin for abortions to occur. Given that God is a guy with limitless possibility, wouldn't it be possible for Him to say that abortions under most circumstances are a-ok?

Yes, it is. You dont accept people comming into your house, but you can deal with it legiamately (IE without doing anything immoral/wrong). In the case of sex the only way to end a pregnancy short of birth is abortion. However the way to deal with burglars is to call the police. Calling the police does not mean ending a life or killing anyone. Abortion does. Thus when having sex a woman has to accept that if she does this and gets pregnant there is nothing she can do about it because of the nature of the pregnancy. Pregancy is in nature very diffrent to being robbed.

The OTHER way to avoid burglars, of course, is to wait until they are in your property, and then shoot the suckers dead.

And it's legal... even protected.

Let me explain the analogy to you:

1- I want a house
2- I don't want burglars, so I put locks on the doors, bars on the windows, alarms etc
3- A burglar gets past all my security
4- I call the cops
5- They struggle with the burglar and end up killing him, there was no other way

in relation to:

1- I want to have sex
2- I don't want to get pregnant, so I get on the pill, have my partner wear condoms etc
3- It still fails somehow, I get pregnant
4- I go to the doctor
5- He removes the embryo and ends up killing it, there was no other way.

Got it now?

There is a diffrence. The cops when struggling with the burglar killed him because there was no other way. However in having an abortion there is another way. Don't have an abortion. You can let the embryo live.

The choice is in being pregnant or not. God knew that Mary would accept which is why he chose her. The choice God gave her here however was whether or not to be pregnant. Not once being pregnant, whether or not to have an abortion.

YOU say God knew.

I say "Revisionist history".

Show me where, in the scripture, Mary had the choice TO BE PREGNANT.

You can't... it's not there.

Thus, 'God' raped Mary.

I don't see how you think arguing God and Mary were merely consumating a standing accord, is going to help your argument, anyway?

The OTHER way to avoid burglars, of course, is to wait until they are in your property, and then shoot the suckers dead.

And it's legal... even protected.
It'd be horrible for humans mating rituals, however.

And yet, having sex is NOT the same as consenting to pregnancy.

Any more than eating food is consenting to choking.

The diffence is that when some does the heinrich manover on you to stop you choking they are not killing you, or anyone else. However when you have an abortion you are killing someon. Hence having sex is consenting to a posibilty of pregnancy and keeping the child because otherwise you would be killing the child.

Jesus had two daddies.

There is a diffrence. The cops when struggling with the burglar killed him because there was no other way. However in having an abortion there is another way. Don't have an abortion. You can let the embryo live.

And in the burglary case, I could've let the burglar take whatever he wanted and leave. That would be the equivalent.

Jesus had two daddies.

Lmao. Thats going in my sig.

YOU say God knew.

I say "Revisionist history".

Show me where, in the scripture, Mary had the choice TO BE PREGNANT.

You can't... it's not there.

Thus, 'God' raped Mary.?

I say "God is omniscent" IE knows all. Thus he knew mary would accept which is why he choose her.


I don't see how you think arguing God and Mary were merely consumating a standing accord, is going to help your argument, anyway?

Eucrasia argued that God did not force Mary to have the child whereas I say obviously God did not force Mary to be pregnant but once pregnant he did force her to have the child.

Excuse me, you were the one who said it is a scientific term

Alive- Having all the qualities of life
Inanimate- Having none of the qualities of life and never previously having them
Dead- Having none of the qualities of life, having previously had them.

You were the one who suggested that the embryo was in a 4th state "undead". You have to prove it. An embryo is none of these given that it has some of the qualites of life but not all. Thus the definiton it falls closest to is being alive.

Not keeping track, my friend.

You are addressing the wrong ideas to the wrong adversaries.

I suggested that there were the alive and dead states, and that a thing which was neither alive nor dead, is perhaps best considered 'not-alive'.

I didn't mention 'undead'... nor did I bring in this 'inanimate' thing.

Search the posts, my friend.

Also - if you have three states of being, and you have an entity that fits none of them... your three states of being MUST be flawed.

Let's look at an allegory.

I walk up to a house. I see you at a window.

I say "There are THREE floors in this house - the Basement, the Ground Floor, and the Mezzanine"

You say "There IS no basement. There is a Ground Floor, and a First Floor. I'm in the attic".

Which is wrong? Your assessment of an attic, or my attempt to pigeonhole the nature of the three floors?

And in the burglary case, I could've let the burglar take whatever he wanted and leave. That would be the equivalent.

No, the equivelent would have been the police arriving and using a stun gun to knock him unconsious but keep him alive.

Yes she does, because if she stops it is killing it. She doesnt have the right to kill it.

Not at all.

If she stops, it dies... but she doesn't kill it.

She DOES have the right to stop.

And, I'm sure the foetus is allowed to go elsewhere to seek sustenance, if it wishes.

No, the equivelent would have been the police arriving and using a stun gun to knock him unconsious but keep him alive.

No because thats taking some sort of action against the burglar. In the case of not having an abortion your not doing anything to the embryo so they aren't equivelant senarios.

It is human for the following reasons:-

It has human DNA which is individual and diffrent that of its mother

It is its own entity

It is developing and growing as a human does

These points back up my arguement.

Faeces have human DNA. Mitochondria have DNA which is different to their 'host'. Chimeric tissue can have unique and different DNA to the 'host'.

A conceptus CANNOT survive on it's own. Thus - it is arguable that it could be "it's own entity". Indeed... without the placenta, the embryo could not survive, even WITH the 'mother'.

Your points have been shot down in flames. I wonder WHY you keep using them?

Do you not accept that there ARE such things as 'mitochondria', or 'chimerae'?

Not keeping track, my friend. SNIP


Somewhere back in the thread, someone else suggested the idea of undead. I refuted that by saying that there are three states. Living, dead and inanimate. However you then said I had to prove it. I made the mistake of saying you brought in the idea of a 4th state, and for that I apologise. However my point still stands. There are three states for which the embryo qualifies entirely for none. The closest one it comes to is alives seing as how it has some of the qualities of life but not all.

No, the equivelent would have been the police arriving and using a stun gun to knock him unconsious but keep him alive.

No, your suggestion of "do nothing and let the pregnancy be carried to term" is the equivalent of "do nothing and let the robbery finish by itself".

I wonder if it would be possible for the Christian Right to believe that God, were He to exist, would not consider it a sin for abortions to occur. Given that God is a guy with limitless possibility, wouldn't it be possible for Him to say that abortions under most circumstances are a-ok?

Actually - in the Bible, God DOES say it's okay... so long as the 'mother' is not harmed.

Well, it actually says the choice is up to the 'father' to decide the punishment, if any... but, it is apparently okay - provided the woman is not harmed.

The diffence is that when some does the heinrich manover on you to stop you choking they are not killing you, or anyone else. However when you have an abortion you are killing someon. Hence having sex is consenting to a posibilty of pregnancy and keeping the child because otherwise you would be killing the child.

Will you quit with the hysterical crap?

You have STILL not PROVED that 'abortion' is "killing someone"... so, repeating it in hysterical tomes is NOT a debate tactic that is going to help.

And, you still miss the point.

Consenting to food =/= consenting to choking.

Consenting to sex =/= consenting to pregnancy.

Consenting to going for a drive =/= smashing head-on into a truck.

An interesting concept regarding God, the soul and abortion:
http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AigcpCVYVFERGgiSOLF5XfxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBwODlycHBuBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3I-/SIG=123knlkm6/EXP=1131920438/**http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.aol.com%2FAlaco%2Fabort5.htm

Again you are adressing the points in isolation. As if a human has to meet only one of them to be a human. Check again, it has to meet them all

Faeces have human DNA. Mitochondria have DNA which is different to their 'host'. Chimeric tissue can have unique and different DNA to the 'host'.

Faeces do not have their own unique DNA which are distinct to the mother. Mitocondria are not developing in the same fashion as a human. Chimeric tissue is not developing in the same fashion as a human.


A conceptus CANNOT survive on it's own. Thus - it is arguable that it could be "it's own entity". Indeed... without the placenta, the embryo could not survive, even WITH the 'mother'.

A man on a life support machiene could not suvive without that machiene. Does that make him non human (and dont whine here about womens rights. Actually answer the question. Does suviving on a life support machine mean you are not a human)


Your points have been shot down in flames. I wonder WHY you keep using them?

Do you not accept that there ARE such things as 'mitochondria', or 'chimerae'?

They have not been shot down in flames.

Will you quit with the hysterical crap?

You have STILL not PROVED that 'abortion' is "killing someone"... so, repeating it in hysterical tomes is NOT a debate tactic that is going to help.

It is destroying a human that is alive. Or rather, very close to alive. However we have the problem that it does not fit alive, dead or inanimate


And, you still miss the point.

Consenting to food =/= consenting to choking.

Consenting to sex =/= consenting to pregnancy.

Consenting to going for a drive =/= smashing head-on into a truck.

You miss the point. You consent to pregnacy by sex because the result of sex being pregnacy cannot be delt with by any method other than killing someone. However the consequnces of choaking can be dealt with by the heinrich manovour and the consequences of being in a car crash can be delt with by ambulneces and medicine. To deal with either of those consequences does not mean that someone has to die. Where as to deal with pregancay it does. Therefore sex means accepting a posibilty of pregnancy because there is no way of dealing with it short of killing someone.

No, your suggestion of "do nothing and let the pregnancy be carried to term" is the equivalent of "do nothing and let the robbery finish by itself".

No, my suggestion is "Do everything you can to stop it short of killing anyone"

I say "God is omniscent" IE knows all. Thus he knew mary would accept which is why he choose her.



And, I believe you are making a special appeal... if a rapist had intercourse with a woman, and impreganted her... then said "he knew she would accept which is why he choose her", that would not be considered a very good defense.

And yet, if you read it in an old book, you swallow it blindly.

And, I believe you are making a special appeal... if a rapist had intercourse with a woman, and impreganted her... then said "he knew she would accept which is why he choose her", that would not be considered a very good defense.

And yet, if you read it in an old book, you swallow it blindly.

The rapeist is not omniscient. God is.

Somewhere back in the thread, someone else suggested the idea of undead. I refuted that by saying that there are three states. Living, dead and inanimate. However you then said I had to prove it. I made the mistake of saying you brought in the idea of a 4th state, and for that I apologise. However my point still stands. There are three states for which the embryo qualifies entirely for none. The closest one it comes to is alives seing as how it has some of the qualities of life but not all.

Your three states are wrong.

That is the obvious answer.

There is 'living'... a thing that HAS life.

There is 'dead'... a thing that has HAD life, and has no more.

And there is 'not-living'... a thing that has never had life... for example, a rock... or a foetus.

Yes, a rock IS inanimate... but all 'inanimate' means is it does not MOVE, it makes no comment to whether it is alive, dead or otherwise.

The rapeist is not omniscient. God is.

Prove it.

Prove that a rapist can NOT be omniscient.

Prove that a god CAN be omniscient.

If you cannot prove one, OR the other, you are speculating.

And there is 'not-living'... a thing that has never had life... for example, a rock... or a foetus.


But it does have life. To an extent. It is just not the full extent. And even if it doesnt have life it is still human and exists. It has a right to exist.

But it does have life. To an extent. It is just not the full extent. And even if it doesnt have life it is still human and exists. It has a right to exist.
It's not a person.

But it does have life. To an extent. It is just not the full extent. And even if it doesnt have life it is still human and exists. It has a right to exist.

No - it has yet to be PROVED.

DO you not understand what a proof IS?

As you pointed out earlier, you can't take things in isolation... if it does not have life 'to the full extent'... then it does not have 'LIFE', empirically.

Does it have a right to exist? You say yes... I say maybe.

But, based on your defense for that: "And even if it doesnt have life it is still human and exists"... the human DNA in excrement MUST be protected... as it also has a right to exist by that logic.

No, my suggestion is "Do everything you can to stop it short of killing anyone"

It's unavoidable. Today, the only way not to kill the embryo is to do nothing. If the only way the burglar would survive was to let it take whatever it wanted, would you tell me not to call the police? Must I subject myself to robbery because the police would kill the burglar if there was no other way to stop him?

Prove it.

Prove that a rapist can NOT be omniscient.

Prove that a god CAN be omniscient.

If you cannot prove one, OR the other, you are speculating.

You are taking the debate out of the context of the Bible. You are now moving on from what happened in the Bible to whethter or not what happened in the Bible actually happened. We are discussing (at least in this offshoot of the debate) biblical events and God is part of the Bible. The Bible specificys that God is omniscent (see Psalm 139) thus if in the Bible the omniscent entity that is God selected Mary to bear his child, he knew (being omiscent) that Mary would accpet.

You are taking the debate out of the context of the Bible. You are now moving on from what happened in the Bible to whethter or not what happened in the Bible actually happened. We are discussing (at least in this offshoot of the debate) biblical events and God is part of the Bible. The Bible specificys that God is omniscent (see Psalm 139) thus if in the Bible the omniscent entity that is God selected Mary to bear his child, he knew (being omiscent) that Mary would accpet.

This debate doesn't have anything to do with the bible at all. It's YOUR holy book, YOUR god, YOUR rules, YOUR hell. I don't believe in it. Your arguments will be immediately considered invalid if they're based in it.

Again you are adressing the points in isolation. As if a human has to meet only one of them to be a human. Check again, it has to meet them all


No - the point is - a human must meet ALL requirements to be considered a human life.... and a foetus does NOT MEET all those requirements.

ANd there are many other things that DO meet SOME requirements.

So - if a foetus is a human life, because it matches one or two points... so is human faeces, mitochondrial DNA and chimeric tissue.


Faeces do not have their own unique DNA which are distinct to the mother. Mitocondria are not developing in the same fashion as a human. Chimeric tissue is not developing in the same fashion as a human.


Actually, chimeric tissue IS "developing in the same fashion as a human"... you should really look at the facts before you argue them.


A man on a life support machiene could not suvive without that machiene. Does that make him non human (and dont whine here about womens rights. Actually answer the question. Does suviving on a life support machine mean you are not a human)


Yes. Surviving ONLY because you are on life support DOES make you less than a functional human life. IF your brain has NO control over even your most BASIC functions (like breathing), you are not a living (breathing) person, anymore.

I still cannot believe you are so trivial, however. Does it not cause you to lose sleep, saying that a woman serves no other purpose than as an incubator for man's precious seed?


They have not been shot down in flames.

Well... they were burning when they hit the ground, and they had bullet holes.... hell, your explanation fot that phenomenon is as good as mine....

Maybe it was aliens?

It's unavoidable. Today, the only way not to kill the embryo is to do nothing. If the only way the burglar would survive was to let it take whatever it wanted, would you tell me not to call the police? Must I subject myself to robbery because the police would kill the burglar if there was no other way to stop him?

If the police kill him accidentally then it is not comparable to abortion. If the police go in to delibrately kill him then it is. And the self defence arguement has already been shown to not apply in the case of abortion. Self defence is only cited as a reason to defend the killing of someone else in a split second momentary decision. IE he was runing at me with a knife, I grabed his hand and turned the knife of him, would be an example. However the self defence arguement would not apply if say he was moving towards you increadably slowly and you then removed the knife from his hand and stabed him with it. The prosecution would argue that you were perfectly capable of simply running away and did not need to kill him to protect yourself. Similarly you do not need to have an abortion to protect your body. You are not in a split second decison, nor are you in danger of dieing. If you are in danger of dying then it becomes a medical operation and abortion is acceptable.

If the police kill him accidentally then it is not comparable to abortion. If the police go in to delibrately kill him then it is. And the self defence arguement has already been shown to not apply in the case of abortion. Self defence is only cited as a reason to defend the killing of someone else in a split second momentary decision. IE he was runing at me with a knife, I grabed his hand and turned the knife of him, would be an example. However the self defence arguement would not apply if say he was moving towards you increadably slowly and you then removed the knife from his hand and stabed him with it. The prosecution would argue that you were perfectly capable of simply running away and did not need to kill him to protect yourself. Similarly you do not need to have an abortion to protect your body. You are not in a split second decison, nor are you in danger of dieing. If you are in danger of dying then it becomes a medical operation and abortion is acceptable.

What are the chances that you would ever concede a point or be swayed in your view at all?

]
Does it have a right to exist? You say yes... I say maybe.

But, based on your defense for that: "And even if it doesnt have life it is still human and exists"... the human DNA in excrement MUST be protected... as it also has a right to exist by that logic.

No, because the human DNA in excrement is not a human. The embryo is. It may not be a living human, but still a human. Excrement DNA is human, but not a human

What are the chances that you would ever concede a point or be swayed in your view at all?

I have conceded several points, read back in the thread.

It is destroying a human that is alive. Or rather, very close to alive. However we have the problem that it does not fit alive, dead or inanimate


It is not destroying a human. Prove it is. What it IS doing, is destroying human TISSUE... we have already established, that is VERY different to 'a human'.

Again - I really AM getting bored with this... the problem is that YOUR definitions are wrong. The three choices you give, or NOT the 'right' three choices.

Do you not listen?


You miss the point. You consent to pregnacy by sex because the result of sex being pregnacy cannot be delt with by any method other than killing someone.


Irrelevent.

You do not consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex.

It really IS that simple.

ANything that comes AFTER pregnancy occurs, such as your situation of 'not killing anyone'... is irrelevent to whether or not CONSENT WAS GIVEN in the first place.

Seriously, is English your second language? If it is... I'll make special allowance... if it ISN'T.... why don't you read the posts and actually respond to what is written?

Ah, but I didn't emprison the embryo in my womb. I took some very specific measures to keep it away from my womb. If someone breaks into my house, I have no obligation to keep them fed and watered, quite the contrary.

No, but it is emprisoned there. It cant get out without dying. Thus you are obligated to help it.

No, because the human DNA in excrement is not a human. The embryo is. It may not be a living human, but still a human. Excrement DNA is human, but not a human

Embryoes are human tissue.

We have yet to determine if they qualify as 'humans'.

Faeces are not humans, but they DO contain human tissue.

As it stands, the two things are equal.

If the police kill him accidentally then it is not comparable to abortion.

Uh, if the police where you live kills people accidentaly, I'd move somewhere else. The police kills deliberately. They are trained to kill when the circumstance requires it.

If the police go in to delibrately kill him then it is. And the self defence arguement has already been shown to not apply in the case of abortion.

I'm defending my body from a parasite. It's kinda like self-defense because it's defense of self. :rolleyes:

Self defence is only cited as a reason to defend the killing of someone else in a split second momentary decision. IE he was runing at me with a knife, I grabed his hand and turned the knife of him, would be an example. However the self defence arguement would not apply if say he was moving towards you increadably slowly and you then removed the knife from his hand and stabed him with it.

Not necessarily a split-second decision. If I'm being held hostage and decide to attack my captors to escape, I'm not going to jump on them on a split-second without planning what to do first. And I'm damn well going to use self-defense if I go to trial for killing them.

The prosecution would argue that you were perfectly capable of simply running away and did not need to kill him to protect yourself.

Because you could have run. Tell me exactly, how am I supposed to run from something that's in my body? Because if you can't think of a way to run, running isn't a possibility.

Similarly you do not need to have an abortion to protect your body. You are not in a split second decison, nor are you in danger of dieing. If you are in danger of dying then it becomes a medical operation and abortion is acceptable.

See above.

You are taking the debate out of the context of the Bible. You are now moving on from what happened in the Bible to whethter or not what happened in the Bible actually happened. We are discussing (at least in this offshoot of the debate) biblical events and God is part of the Bible. The Bible specificys that God is omniscent (see Psalm 139) thus if in the Bible the omniscent entity that is God selected Mary to bear his child, he knew (being omiscent) that Mary would accpet.

The Bible also specifies that God sends evil spirits, has a face, has hands, cannot win a war against Iron Chariots, and has meetings with other gods.

Not EVERYTHING within the Bible can be taken at face value.

Thus - PROVE that God was omniscient...

Further, EVEN IF 'god' IS omniscient, there is no mention in the scripture as to whether he chose Mary based on that. YOUR opinion is not scripture... PROVE IT FROM scripture.

It is not destroying a human. Prove it is. What it IS doing, is destroying human TISSUE... we have already established, that is VERY different to 'a human'.

It has its own human DNA unique from its mother. It is its own entity. It is growing and developing. Having all those three things makes it a human


Irrelevent.

You do not consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex.

It really IS that simple.

ANything that comes AFTER pregnancy occurs, such as your situation of 'not killing anyone'... is irrelevent to whether or not CONSENT WAS GIVEN in the first place.


Let me make it clear to you. By having sex you consent to pregnacy because pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex. That posibility can be lowerd by birth control etc but it cannot be completlety erradicated. Thus the posibility must be accpeted. The reason abortion is not an option is that it is destroying a human, which she does not have the right to do.

No, because the human DNA in excrement is not a human. The embryo is. It may not be a living human, but still a human. Excrement DNA is human, but not a human

The embryo is human because it has human DNA, but the feces isn't human because, even though it has human DNA, it's not a human. It's human because it has DNA, it's not human because the DNA isn't enough to make it human. Make up your mind!!

I have conceded several points, read back in the thread.

That's true. Just not the essential ones.

No, but it is emprisoned there. It cant get out without dying. Thus you are obligated to help it.

No, I'm not. I didn't want it to be there in the first place, I have no obligations to it.

No - I suggest you get some help reading the scripture.

The messenger turns up, and tells Mary it is ALREADY on.

At the end, she accepts her fate.

But - of course, by then, the thing has been done.

He doesn't give her the choice "do you want to be pregnant or not".... and I challenge you to show me where Mary actually CHOOSES whether to be pregnant.

She is LEFT, at the end of the passage, with a choice to ACCEPT it or not. She's already up the duff.

That was exactly what I was trying to bring across earlier and you didn't even need shotgun allegories to eplxain it. You must be a genius. :D

Let me make it clear to you. By having sex you consent to pregnacy because pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex. That posibility can be lowerd by birth control etc but it cannot be completlety erradicated. Thus the posibility must be accpeted. The reason abortion is not an option is that it is destroying a human, which she does not have the right to do.

The possible outcome of leaving your door unlocked when leavng the house is having people break into your home.
Does that automatically mean that you are obliged to give them food an shelter at the expense of your on health and maybe life? Not even an insurance company would be brazen enough to request that... :rolleyes:

The Bible also specifies that God sends evil spirits, has a face, has hands, cannot win a war against Iron Chariots, and has meetings with other gods.

I'd like to see where it says those things.


Not EVERYTHING within the Bible can be taken at face value.

Thus - PROVE that God was omniscient...

See Psalm 139. We can only deal with the concept of whether or not God is omniscent in the context of the Bible. But I see what your doing with this arguement. Allow me to demonstrate

G&I: The Bible says that God raped Mary, he forced her to have his child
A II: God is omniscent, he wouldnt have chosen Mary if she refused
G&I: Prove that God is omniscent
A II: The Bible says so
G&I: The Bible cant be trusted
A II: If that is the case, how can we trust your claim about him raping Mary?

Your point is moot. If (as you say) the Bible cant be trusted then maybe he did offer her a choice and we dont know.


Further, EVEN IF 'god' IS omniscient, there is no mention in the scripture as to whether he chose Mary based on that. YOUR opinion is not scripture... PROVE IT FROM scripture.

It is not of his nature to rape a woman. Scripture shows that

It has its own human DNA unique from its mother. It is its own entity. It is growing and developing. Having all those three things makes it a human


According to you. Those three things, however, are not even enough to constitute a thing as 'alive', by definitions already posted IN THIS THREAD.

Are you claiming you have the golden three things, that are more inmportant that being alive?

Why these three things?

And - let us look... by YOUR definition, a cloned baby might not be a human? Since it COULD have non-unique DNA?


Let me make it clear to you.


Don't patronise me. You are about to restate PURE opinion.

If you want to 'make it clear', you better have a damn sight more than a swagger to back up your claims.


By having sex you consent to pregnacy because pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex. That posibility can be lowerd by birth control etc but it cannot be completlety erradicated. Thus the posibility must be accpeted. The reason abortion is not an option is that it is destroying a human, which she does not have the right to do.

ANd choking is a possible outcome of eating.

Thus - by YOUR logic, if you choke, tough buns - you accepted the risk.

By YOUR logic, if you crash your car, tough noodles - you accepted the risk when you got in.

Consent to an action does not AUTOMATICALLY EQUATE to consent to ANY of the possible outcomes of that action.

Oh sure - it's a good idea to KNOW about those risks... and to be prepared for them, but there is no automatic transfer of consent.

This is what we are talking about. Stage 22 (an embryonic phase which occurs about 54 days after ovulation, or 7.75 weeks of pregnancy - or, about forty eight days after the fertilization [sex]).

http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage_22_animations.htm

It has all of it's stuff, a functioning brain and beating heart and is sensitive and responsive to stimuli.

That was exactly what I was trying to bring across earlier and you didn't even need shotgun allegories to eplxain it. You must be a genius. :D

Ha ha! Why thank you.

Of course, if you'll let me borrow that shotgun (allegory) of yours.... we were both shooting the blind-side of the same barn... one of us was BOUND to hit it sooner or later. :)

Uh, if the police where you live kills people accidentaly, I'd move somewhere else. The police kills deliberately. They are trained to kill when the circumstance requires it.

They may kill him acidentally from trying to disable him


I'm defending my body from a parasite. It's kinda like self-defense because it's defense of self. :rolleyes:

The embryo is not harming you to the extent that killing it is nessecary. Certianly that defence would not hold up in court. "There was someone who was making me *insert pregnacy symptoms here* for 9 months so I killed him"

No way.


Because you could have run. Tell me exactly, how am I supposed to run from something that's in my body? Because if you can't think of a way to run, running isn't a possibility.

Stop taking the analogy at face value. In this case running is not killing IE not having the abortion. You did not need to kill as he was not immidately killing you.

I'd like to see where it says those things.

See Psalm 139. We can only deal with the concept of whether or not God is omniscent in the context of the Bible. But I see what your doing with this arguement. Allow me to demonstrate

G&I: The Bible says that God raped Mary, he forced her to have his child
A II: God is omniscent, he wouldnt have chosen Mary if she refused
G&I: Prove that God is omniscent
A II: The Bible says so
G&I: The Bible cant be trusted
A II: If that is the case, how can we trust your claim about him raping Mary?

Your point is moot. If (as you say) the Bible cant be trusted then maybe he did offer her a choice and we dont know.


I see it more like:
G&I: The Bible says that God raped Mary, he forced her to have his child
A II: God is omniscent, he wouldnt have chosen Mary if she refused
G&I: Prove that God is omniscent
A II: The Bible says so
G&I: Even if THAT were true.... prove that god chose mary BECAUSE of that?
A II: la la la I can't hear you....


It is not of his nature to rape a woman. Scripture shows that

I disagree, actually. I would say that the sort of god who ORDERED the mass slaughter of people, just because he didn't like their religion, and where they had built their house (read the book of Joshua)... the same god who murdered every human man, woman and child... save for a handful (see Genesis), the same god who visited hell on earth on a man, but would not LET him change his alliegance (see Exodus)... The same god who demanded a blood sacrifice in order to absolve sins, and had his own son murdered just for that purpose...

Sounds like JUST the kind of god who would rape a woman.

According to you. Those three things, however, are not even enough to constitute a thing as 'alive', by definitions already posted IN THIS THREAD.

Are you claiming you have the golden three things, that are more inmportant that being alive?

Why these three things?

And - let us look... by YOUR definition, a cloned baby might not be a human? Since it COULD have non-unique DNA?

A cloned baby has unique DNA from its mother still. IE the mother of the person it is being cloned from. Those things all constitute being human.


ANd choking is a possible outcome of eating.

Thus - by YOUR logic, if you choke, tough buns - you accepted the risk.

By YOUR logic, if you crash your car, tough noodles - you accepted the risk when you got in.

Consent to an action does not AUTOMATICALLY EQUATE to consent to ANY of the possible outcomes of that action.

Oh sure - it's a good idea to KNOW about those risks... and to be prepared for them, but there is no automatic transfer of consent.

It is concent in so far you accpet a posibiliuty of it happening. However in the case of choking it can be stopped becuase someone can give you the henrich manover, in the case of a car crash, you can have an ambulence crew help you out. In both these cases you concented to the risk of it happening but you can be helped out of it. However in the case of pregncy you cant, since the only way to be got out of it is to have an abortio (IE kill it) therefore you must accept pregnacy since you cant do anything about it if it happens. Consent to an action does equate to accepting the consequecnes if the consecquence cannot be stoped by any mesure other than killing someone.

I see it more like:
G&I: The Bible says that God raped Mary, he forced her to have his child
A II: God is omniscent, he wouldnt have chosen Mary if she refused
G&I: Prove that God is omniscent
A II: The Bible says so
G&I: Even if THAT were true.... prove that god chose mary BECAUSE of that?
A II: la la la I can't hear you....


Way to patronise. God would not choose someone who didnt want his child because his plan is perfect by nature. Chosing someone who didnt want it would be a flaw in his plan and thus it wouldnt happen


I disagree, actually. I would say that the sort of god who ORDERED the mass slaughter of people, just because he didn't like their religion, and where they had built their house (read the book of Joshua)... the same god who murdered every human man, woman and child... save for a handful (see Genesis), the same god who visited hell on earth on a man, but would not LET him change his alliegance (see Exodus)... The same god who demanded a blood sacrifice in order to absolve sins, and had his own son murdered just for that purpose...

Sounds like JUST the kind of god who would rape a woman.

If you want to discuss the nature of God, do so in another thread. For now, have a look at these pages. They explain the points you are raising.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

The entire index of what they answer is here. You may find more intersting stuff there

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/topix.html

They may kill him acidentally from trying to disable him

And they'd face a world of trouble. Cops are supposed to kill when it's necessary, and "whoopsie! I only meant to disable that one" is not the sign of a very good police force. They're trained to do it right.

The embryo is not harming you to the extent that killing it is nessecary. Certianly that defence would not hold up in court. "There was someone who was making me *insert pregnacy symptoms here* for 9 months so I killed him"

No way.

It wouldn't be necessary to kill it if there was any other way to stop the harm. But there isn't. And being held hostage and tortured for 9 months definitely gets you a "get out of jail free" card on self-defense.

Stop taking the analogy at face value. In this case running is not killing IE not having the abortion. You did not need to kill as he was not immidately killing you.

Running = stopping the robber/whoever without harming them. Tell me how this is possible in the case of pregnancy. Give me one way for the woman to evade the parasite without killing it and I'll concede. Not just "do nothing and let it feed off you". One way for the woman to escape from the embryo inside her without killing it. Just one. Come on.

Because if there's no way to escape it, there's no way to escape it. You either run or you fight. If you can't run, you have fight. Or let yourself be used. No law can force you to let yourself be used.

A cloned baby has unique DNA from its mother still. IE the mother of the person it is being cloned from. Those things all constitute being human.


Alright, put your pompoms down.

The clones 'mother' might BE the person it is cloned from....

(Look up parthenogenesis, by the way)...

In which case, the DNA would NOT be unique.

Thus - by YOUR logic, the child would not be human.


Your 'rules' are indiscriminate and arbitrary.


It is concent in so far you accpet a posibiliuty of it happening. However in the case of choking it can be stopped becuase someone can give you the henrich manover, in the case of a car crash, you can have an ambulence crew help you out. In both these cases you concented to the risk of it happening but you can be helped out of it. However in the case of pregncy you cant, since the only way to be got out of it is to have an abortio (IE kill it) therefore you must accept pregnacy since you cant do anything about it if it happens. Consent to an action does equate to accepting the consequecnes if the consecquence cannot be stoped by any mesure other than killing someone.

No. Ambulance crews or the Heimlich maneuveur are irrelevent to the issue of CONSENT.

If I push you down a staircase, the paramedic turning up does NOT mean you consented.

Way to patronise. God would not choose someone who didnt want his child because his plan is perfect by nature. Chosing someone who didnt want it would be a flaw in his plan and thus it wouldnt happen

If you want to discuss the nature of God, do so in another thread. For now, have a look at these pages. They explain the points you are raising.


If you want to preach, friend... go find a street-corner. I don't want your 'god', I don't NEED your 'god', and I do not accept your 'god' as a valid reason to make laws.

Your logic is circular.

God didn't rape because god WOULDN'T rape....

and we know that, because:

God wouldn't rape, because god DIDN'T rape...

and we know that, because: etc.

Lather, rinse, repeat. ad infinitum. ad nauseum.

If you want to preach, friend... go find a street-corner. I don't want your 'god', I don't NEED your 'god', and I do not accept your 'god' as a valid reason to make laws.

Your logic is circular.

God didn't rape because god WOULDN'T rape....

and we know that, because:

God wouldn't rape, because god DIDN'T rape...

and we know that, because: etc.

Lather, rinse, repeat. ad infinitum. ad nauseum.

I wonder if it's possible for a christian to avoid circular arguments entirely. It's like a fact of life to them (and I should know, I've been christian most of my life).

You know what? So do I. :)


hehehe
;)

I have conceded several points, read back in the thread.
Damn.
OK. I concede this point to you.

Swearing is a sign of a lack of intellegence and vocabulary.

He added a word that when it is removed the sentence is exactly the same. It shows extra vocabulary. Given your grammar and spelling, I'm not sure criticizing his intelligence or vocabulary is your best option.

And suppose you are unconsious but could be brought round given 9 months help? If I killed you in those 9 months would it be murder?

Yes, because you are a person with a brain that demonstrates consciousness. An embryo has NO BRAIN and does none of the things that demonstrate consciousness or some of things required to be considered life.

Dont make up new definitions to suit your purposes. It is either dead, alive, or inanimate. There are no other scientific states of existance. Dont pretend like there are.

He made them up? Can you show me science text you got dead, alive or inanimate out of? You made that up so you can say, it's isn't dead or inanimate so what is it? And now you're declaring it a scientific law. A robot is animated, so it's not inanimate. It's not dead. So what is it?

Agreed, but that isnt annalogous with pregnancy or abortion. For one the embryo did not put itself in that position, as your person in the locked room did. Secondly the mother can bring the resorces nessecary to the person, so the cant bring the airtanks idea is wrong.

See not I was being nice about your spelling and grammar, but since you made that comment I'm going to note all of your mistakes until I'm caught up with the thread. Analogous, neccessary, can't.

And fine, if analogies have to be perfect then do not use a person in any more of your analogies because an embryo is not a person by your own admission.

No, they can breathe, just with help. My description of playing God is choosing when someone dies. No one has that right.

How can someone die when the embryo does not qualify as a life?

And you're wrong. They cannot breathe with help. They have no capability for taking breath/breathing. The machine must do it for them because the part of their brain that tells their body to do this is either not working properly or cannot communicate with the lungs and diaphram.

In the case of Terri Schiavo they shut down a body that no longer had consciousness or a functional brain. This was proven in autopsy. The Terri Schiavo any knew was definitely no longer able to use that body, but because of current technology the machines had to be disconnected in order for her to die. That would be a case of 'playing God' in your description, but the fact is that without human intervention Terri's body would have died long before that when her brain did.

I see. Can you elaboratre as to why
Elaborate.

My point from the start has been that while ultimately there are unfortunate reasons for abortion, there is a living being in question that certainly has a right to live and that right should not be denied easily. I fail to see how that's a made-up point. I have even tried dumbing it down for you.

It's not a made up point, it's just wrong. Your point has no basis in biology which very clearly shows that an embryo does not meet the qualities for life. Unlike your points, they were not made up to win an argument about abortion, they were made to identify living organisms from groups of living organisms and parts of other living organisms.

So I'm concluding either you're very heartless and have no concern for human life or are just too stupid to understand logic no matter how simple it is. So I'm just done arguing. I'm not comming back to this topic because I know all you'll do is make up random crap about my posts and I'm looking for a debate based around facts rather than who can discredit who better.
Yes, this shows that you are a master debater. You declare that I'm making up stuff when you've been shown to be using logical fallacies that according to you are 'dumbed down' but apparantly not simple enough for you to notice the fallacy. I was nice enough to show it to you. Now you've stuck your fingers in your ears and are shouting "LALALALALALA!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" No matter how many times I see this tactic it makes me giggle. I'm sorry that you find logic and knowledge threatening enough that you must run and hide. I sincerely hope that one day you will choose otherwise.

More so than the embryo's existance. That frankly is sick. Would you rather loose control of one of your internal organs for 9 months or die?

Moreso, lose.

The fact that you are willing to say "tough-s***" to the conceptus suggests that you think its right to do so. You are implying that untill we have the technology to make it so we dont have to do that that it is morally aceptable to abort the fetus.

It's, don't, acceptable. It's not like the embryo can hear him. I often say something similarly cold to my food which at one point was demonstrably more alive than the embryo.

She doent have the right to abuse that right with someone elses existance.
I agree completely except there is no someone else (by the way that should say ELSE'S). You've already conceded that there is no person, so stop pretending like there is. Or are you arguing from potential again?

God didnt "point a gun" so to speek at Marys head. He already knew that she would accept. He wouldnt have chosen her if she would have been unwilling.

Didn't, speak, wouldn't.

So, now that we see the quality of your grammar, spelling and vocabulary, I think we don't need to see more comments about GnI's intelligence and vocabulary, do we? I should hope not. I do not like demonstrating this and I do not want to have to do it again.

This is what we are talking about. Stage 22 (an embryonic phase which occurs about 54 days after ovulation, or 7.75 weeks of pregnancy - or, about forty eight days after the fertilization [sex]).

http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage_22_animations.htm

It has all of it's stuff, a functioning brain and beating heart and is sensitive and responsive to stimuli.

None of that is supported by that link which also says it 54-56 days after ovulation. Did you leave out the 56 so people wouldn't say that it's eight weeks, AFTER about 56% of abortions occur? Odd that you left out the only piece of information the link provides.

"At about the twenty-third week the lungs become able to function, and, as a result, 23 weeks is the earliest date at which premature babies have survived. At 24 weeks the third trimester begins, and at about this time, as the cerebral cortex becomes "wired," fetal EEG readings begin to look more and more like those of a newborn. It may be a logical consequence, either of natural selection or of divine creation, that fetal higher brain activity begins at about the time when life outside the mother becomes possible. After all, without brain function, prematurely born fetuses would lack elementary survival skills, such as the ability to root for nourishment." -excerpt from a Free Republic Article

-If a human being can be determined to have a soul, it has been most commonly said to originate in the brain. What makes a human being different from any other living organism? Our ability to think beyond basic survival instincts. Feel free to disagree, but it is the most simplistic way I can think of to determine the basic difference between us and any other animal.

-The human soul, what is it? "The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated." -Cathoic Encyclopedia. According to this source, those are the four requirements for a human soul. I am willing to take a leap and say that if any one of these elements is missing, a soul cannot be.

-So the basic organs required for survival are present in a fetus. This in no way indicates that each and every organ is at full functional capacity (including the brain). This must be fact, otherwise a fetus would easily survive outside the womb. Of course this changes later in a pregnancy when, without the existence of the mother's womb, an infant can survive even if it requires an incubator.

I end this by suggesting that if the components required to define a human soul and therefore a human life are incomplete, abortion should not be termed "murder".

Alright, put your pompoms down.

The clones 'mother' might BE the person it is cloned from....

(Look up parthenogenesis, by the way)...

In which case, the DNA would NOT be unique.

Thus - by YOUR logic, the child would not be human.

I'm not sure you understand me. If Sally is cloned, and her clone is implanted into her, she is not her own DNA. The mother of the clone is the same as Sally's mum



No. Ambulance crews or the Heimlich maneuveur are irrelevent to the issue of CONSENT.

If I push you down a staircase, the paramedic turning up does NOT mean you consented.

You consent to the posibility of it every day. You cant just say "it is impossible". However fortunetly that consenting doesnt matter because it can be delt with. However consenting to sex means consenting of consequences of it, which could be pregnancy. You have to accept those consequences because there is no way for you to not.

However consenting to sex means consenting of consequences of it, which could be pregnancy. You have to accept those consequences because there is no way for you to not.

No you don't. You could use birth control, do any number of things that I won't mention here, or have an abortion. You don't have to accept anything just because there is a possibility of it happening. Possibility does not equal consent. And until you can show otherwise in laws your just voicing your opinion not a fact.

You consent to the posibility of it every day. You cant just say "it is impossible". However fortunetly that consenting doesnt matter because it can be delt with. However consenting to sex means consenting of consequences of it, which could be pregnancy. You have to accept those consequences because there is no way for you to not.

Yes, there is a way to deal with it. You may think it's illegal or immoral or a sin or whatever, but the way exists.

And you still haven't answered me on just what other way there is for a woman to escape from that particular parasite/robber. I'm beginning to think you don't know any...

I agree but no one has the right to make a decision that someone else will die unless it is the kill or be killed situation. Death penalty is wrong, abortion is wrong, euthinasia is wrong because all centre around humans choosing when to terminate a humans existance.

Killing someone to prevent a rape is wrong? That's not kill or be killed. Must a woman allow a rape if she has no way to stop it other than killing her attacker?

Fine. There is someone in hosptial who is in a condition that needs a strict drug treatment regieme that lasts for 9 months. If he doesnt recieve those drugs he needs he will die. After those 9 months he will be fine. If you intentionally stop that supply of drugs getting to him, you are killing him, are you not?

Let's complete the analogy. The drugs are made from the enzymes in a particular human that is the only one available. In order to make the enzyme that human must undergo pain, incontinence, body distortion, strange hormones, possibly tearing certain parts and even death is a possibility (and can't always be prevented once it's liklihood is apparent). The human in every case would be given a choice of whether to help the person in your scenario survive. The only one I have ever heard suggest that a person could be forced to save the life of another is you.

Murder should be mandatory.

Stop trolling.

Killing someone to prevent a rape is wrong? That's not kill or be killed. Must a woman allow a rape if she has no way to stop it other than killing her attacker?

Obviously. Then she must be proud to bear his seed like the good little incubator that she is, and be happy to have the honor of being looked upon by a man. If she dares to refuse any of this, she must be reminded that woman is inferior to man, and told that she should've dressed more decently, the whore. Then she'll be sold by her father to the nice rapist and be happy to serve him as his wife and give him lots of sons.

Planned parenthood is very much pro abortion, read their statistics, they do not coucil people on any course but abortion in their clinics as stated by several outpatient polls.

Have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood? I have, and I can tell you that this claim is laughable. Granted, I've never been there whilie pregnant, since I've never been pregnant. But even just glancing through the various pamphlets available and the various posters on the walls in the waiting room, there is a whole lot more to it than abortion. I was there for a regular pap smear, something I couldn't afford elsewhere, as I was uninsured and not in school at the time. I also got birth control there. We're talking about an organization that provides birth control of all types, regular checkups, pregnancy tests, some pre-natal care, and, yes, abortions. But abortions are hardly the end-all be-all of the organization.

"The Definition of Life:
Can the fertilized egg be included?

Ok, here we're talking about the fertilized egg. A zygote.

7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its
environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples.
In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music
and can recognize the voice of its mother.

*Boggle* A zygote can kick and jump? And here I thought it didn't even have legs yet!

Your source is *trying* to prove that a zygote meets the defiition, and yet they jump to a reaction that cannot happen until the fetal stage?

Let me just clarify what you are saying here. Suposing a clone is made of John, whose parents are Sarah and Henry. The clone's embryo is implanted inside Jane. Does this then mean that the baby will form a maternal bond with Jane (the mother in the sense of the woman who carried the child) or Sarah (the mother in the sense of genetics)

Actually, most people would say that the biological mother is the provider of the egg. That seems to be the way most reproduction goes. And, in most cases, the provider of the egg will also provide the DNA for the clone (cloning male creatures is much more difficult than cloning female creatures). It could (although no one has or probably will do this with a human being) then be implanted back into the woman who provided both the egg and the DNA for gestation. Thus, the mother and embryo would have the same DNA.

Being pro-life does not necessitate one using religious or philosophical arguements.

Then please provide an objective argument.

In fact being pro-abortion does require philosophical arguements of choice.

I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. Could you please point me to such a person?

Each human life has rights regardless of its level of development.

Define "human life".

To take any other position is subjective.

To take any position is subjective. The difference is that pro-choice people do not wish to force their position on others.

The pro-life position is the only logical and consistent position.

Wow, stating opinion as if it were indisputable fact. Let me see if I can try!

The pro-choice position is the only logical and consistent position.

Look! It works both ways!

We have determined long ago the murder is wrong.

Irrelevant to the discussion. No one is talking about committing murder.

So blood donation is stealing?

I know others already addressed this, but I have to.

Donation. Do you understand that word? It means that someone is voluntarily giving their blood to be used by others. I do this. I volunteer to do it. Nobody forces me. Nobody has the right to force me to do so. I do it because I want to, because I voluntarily help others.

Now, if you were to take a person unwilling to donate blood, strap them to a table, jab a needle in their arm, and take their blood, that would be stealing. If you were to legally compel them to give, so that they must give blood or go to jail, that would be stealing.

You cannot compare donation to anything involuntary.

THe simple response here is if the organism is only a few cells than the response of those cells IS the response of the organism.

That would work, if you weren't using a circular argument. In order to state this, you have to first assume that the two cells are an organism. This is a bit backwards, as you should simply apply the criteria and see if they fit to the two cells. In truth, they don't, anymore than they would apply to two yeast cells that happen to be in contact, or two bacteria that happen to be in contact.

If you are still for abortion

Was somebody arguing "for abortion"? I missed it....

after the understanding that not only the baby is alive but that most abortions are preformed even after the baby has a functional heart, brain, blood, limbs, and even pain receptors, then at least you are being honest with yourself.

Actually, this is all patently untrue. About 60% of all abortions occur before there is a functional nervous system of any sort (that includes brain). Pain receptors don't appear to be functional until near the third trimester - and third trimester abortions aren't allowed in this country except in extreme circumstances. Over 80% of all abortions occur before 13 weeks.

It seems that you aren't the one being honest, my dear.

I know others already addressed this, but I have to.

Donation. Do you understand that word? It means that someone is voluntarily giving their blood to be used by others. I do this. I volunteer to do it. Nobody forces me. Nobody has the right to force me to do so. I do it because I want to, because I voluntarily help others.

Now, if you were to take a person unwilling to donate blood, strap them to a table, jab a needle in their arm, and take their blood, that would be stealing. If you were to legally compel them to give, so that they must give blood or go to jail, that would be stealing.

You cannot compare donation to anything involuntary.

I don't remember seeing you on this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453683&page=7), but I could sure use a hand from an expert...

Pro-Choice: What is your logic?My logic: It is none fo your business what someone else does.

Yes, nice use of extremes there. I am talking about a direct decision to end a human existance. Not an unconsious chain of events.

No, you aren't talking about any such thing. You are talking about a woman deciding to have her womb vacated. The chain of events involved with that leads to the destruction of an embryo/fetus.

If I own an apartment complex, and a squatter moves in, do I not have the right to tell him to leave? What if it is cold out on the streets and he will probably die without living inside? Do I have to let him continue living in my property? The law says no. I don't have to consider his situation at all when he moves into my property without my permission. Unless he has a contract with me, I can put him out on the streets at my convenience. If he then dies, I am not held legally responsible for it.

Yet, you would say that a person cannot even decide what is and is not in their own bodies, while they can decide at any time what is in their buildings. Seems a bit off, don't you think?

It is not religious, or a peronal moral question. It is a matter of justice, and whether you would want 3 million humans killed every year.

The minute you start referring to humans in this debate, you have already created your own answer to a religious and personal moral question - what is a human person?

You cannot deny the fact that they will someday be a person.

Will is a rather strong word for something with a less than 50% chance of happening.

Should a mother have the right to snatch away the life of an embryo? I don't think so.

A mother should have the right to refuse to have her body used as an incubator. Now, should she exercise that right in the case of a pregnancy? As a general rule, I would say no. Of course, I only have the right to force that decision on my own body. Thus, if I become pregnant, I will not have an abortion.

Un-dead is not a scientific term. The three existance states are dead, alive or inanimate. An embryo is not dead seing as how its cells are alive and not dying and it is growing/developing. It is not inanimate seeing as how it is growing and developing.

You have already been shown time and time again that "inanimate" is not a scientific term for all things that are neither dead nor alive either. A salt crystal can be growing/developing, but it is neither alive nor dead. A stalactite is growing/developing, but it is neither alive nor dead. These things are simply "not alive". Inanimate can be used to describe some things that are not alive, but not others.

The embryo is not harming you to the extent that killing it is nessecary. Certianly that defence would not hold up in court. "There was someone who was making me *insert pregnacy symptoms here* for 9 months so I killed him"

No way.

You don't seriously believe that do you? If a person did the kind of damage that pregnancy does to a woman to another person and that person had no choice but to kill the person or endure it for nine months, it most certainly would hold up in court. Many abused wives have less permanent damage done to them than pregnancy causes. You merely have to show that you used the least possible force to end the abuse to your body. If the death of your attacker is the least possible force, then so be it. Ever heard of rape? The damage done from many rapists is much less than that of pregnancy, at least physically.

You don't seriously believe that do you? If a person did the kind of damage that pregnancy does to a woman to another person and that person had no choice but to kill the person or endure it for nine months, it most certainly would hold up in court. Many abused wives have less permanent damage done to them than pregnancy causes. You merely have to show that you used the least possible force to end the abuse to your body. If the death of your attacker is the least possible force, then so be it. Ever heard of rape? The damage done from many rapists is much less than that of pregnancy, at least physically.

There are seveal diffrences to a person doing it here

1. We know for certian that it will end in 9 months
2. The Embryo is not doing it out of malace, or because it is mentally unstable. It is doing it because it can do no other.
3. If you can use no force short of killing yet you are practically certian to suvive if you do not kill it the court would not hold up your position

You have already been shown time and time again that "inanimate" is not a scientific term for all things that are neither dead nor alive either. A salt crystal can be growing/developing, but it is neither alive nor dead. A stalactite is growing/developing, but it is neither alive nor dead. These things are simply "not alive". Inanimate can be used to describe some things that are not alive, but not others.

A salt crystal is not growing or developing in anything like the fashion of a human or any other organic growth system. Inanimate is a scientific term, it is to be found in a dictionary and is understood to mean all entities that have none of the qualities of life. This new term of G&I "un-dead" or "not-dead" has been made up by him.

If I own an apartment complex, and a squatter moves in, do I not have the right to tell him to leave? What if it is cold out on the streets and he will probably die without living inside? Do I have to let him continue living in my property? The law says no. I don't have to consider his situation at all when he moves into my property without my permission. Unless he has a contract with me, I can put him out on the streets at my convenience. If he then dies, I am not held legally responsible for it.


Suppose you owned a life support machine and someone who needed it went against your will to use that device because they needed it. Now you may hate the fact that they went against your will to use it but removing him off that machine and killing him simply because "its yours" will not help your case.


Yet, you would say that a person cannot even decide what is and is not in their own bodies, while they can decide at any time what is in their buildings. Seems a bit off, don't you think?

See above.

Yes, there is a way to deal with it. You may think it's illegal or immoral or a sin or whatever, but the way exists.

The way exists but that doesnt make it right. Thus you have to accept the consequneces since there is no morrally accpetable way to deal with it.


And you still haven't answered me on just what other way there is for a woman to escape from that particular parasite/robber. I'm beginning to think you don't know any...

You misunderstood the example. It was showing a way of dealing with the embryo without killing it. The only option is to have it. You cannot deal with it without killing it, ergo you have it

There are seveal diffrences to a person doing it here

1. We know for certian that it will end in 9 months
2. The Embryo is not doing it out of malace, or because it is mentally unstable. It is doing it because it can do no other.
3. If you can use no force short of killing yet you are practically certian to suvive if you do not kill it the court would not hold up your position

Do you have any idea of the psycological harm that having to raise her rapst's child would do to a victim? How could she ever move on from the ordeal if the child was there as a constant reminder? Even if she put it up for adoption the nine months would be incredibly traumatic, quite probably leading to suicide in many cases. Isn't her life worth protecting?

Do you have any idea of the psycological harm that having to raise her rapst's child would do to a victim? How could she ever move on from the ordeal if the child was there as a constant reminder? Even if she put it up for adoption the nine months would be incredibly traumatic, quite probably leading to suicide in many cases. Isn't her life worth protecting?

I agree her life is worth protecting, which is why the government needs to do all it can to support mothers in these cases (which is what I dont believe it is doing enough of now). But killing the embryo if both of them can survive is wrong. I am not only saying abortion is bad, but its also the circumstances which lead up to some people feeling a nessecity of it is bad also. Abortion is wrong. Two wrongs dont make a right

Suppose you owned a life support machine and someone who needed it went against your will to use that device because they needed it. Now you may hate the fact that they went against your will to use it but removing him off that machine and killing him simply because "its yours" will not help your case.


Actually, I seem to remember a fair number of cases in which hospitals refused emergency treatement to a person because he wasn't insured, resulting in the persons' deaths. The hospitals were not liable.

I agree her life is worth protecting, which is why the government needs to do all it can to support mothers in these cases (which is what I dont believe it is doing enough of now). But killing the embryo if both of them can survive is wrong. I am not only saying abortion is bad, but its also the circumstances which lead up to some people feeling a nessecity of it is bad also. Abortion is wrong. Two wrongs dont make a right

You still don't seem to appreciate the long-term psycological harm which your course of action would cause, she could easily be emotionally crippled for life.

Incidently, you're also lowering the woman's place in society to the level of an incubator: she has no right to decide whether she wants a child or not.

You may say that two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes the best course of action isn't black or white, but a shade of grey.

Actually, I seem to remember a fair number of cases in which hospitals refused emergency treatement to a person because he wasn't insured, resulting in the persons' deaths. The hospitals were not liable.

That is an outrageous policy, and I might add that in Britain it would never happen. We have a little something called the NHS that prevents such outrages.

You still don't seem to appreciate the long-term psycological harm which your course of action would cause, she could easily be emotionally crippled for life.

Incidently, you're also lowering the woman's place in society to the level of an incubator: she has no right to decide whether she wants a child or not.

I agree it is sad. I do not reduce the position of women to incubators. I know women are more than that. But being a woman does not give you the right to play God with someone elses existance. It is better for her to be emotionally crippled and the child to live than for here to be emotinally crippled and the child dead (Abortion is equally crippling in many cases). Of course she has a right to decide if she wants a child or not, but if she has one (IE she is pregnant) then she doesnt have the right to end that child's life


You may say that two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes the best course of action isn't black or white, but a shade of grey.

How prey would you define a shade of grey in this case. Dont spout off rhetoric at me.

But being a woman does not give you the right to play God with someone elses existance. It is better for her to be emotionally crippled and the child to live than for here to be emotinally crippled and the child dead (Abortion is equally crippling in many cases).
Abortion in this case would not be as emotionally crippling as actually bearing the child and being reminded every moment of his or her existence of the event that befell you. Any emotional side-effect of the abortion itself would be negated in the light of the initial act, never mind compared to the destructive sense of violation you would be haunted by consistently for the next decade.

So your point is debatable on two levels. One, it would be better for the emotionally disturbed woman to abort than to be absolutely devastated in raising the child of the man who tore down the veil of her security. Two, would you really submit a child to a single parent who secretly died every time the two interacted?

There really is no question that a woman has the right to refuse to bear the child of someone who forced themself upon her against her will. There is no playing God involved in this discussion, unless you assume that God is directly responsible for putting that child there; in which case, the woman has every right to despise him utterly and refuse to do his bidding either.

There are seveal diffrences to a person doing it here

Not a person and you've admitted as much.

1. We know for certian that it will end in 9 months

Not a requirement for self-defence. A rape NEVER lasts for nine months and still justifies deadly force.

2. The Embryo is not doing it out of malace, or because it is mentally unstable. It is doing it because it can do no other.

Doesn't matter. Malice is not a requirement, nor is intent. If you are being attacked, even if your attacker does not know better or 'has no choice', it does not matter. Protecting your person is paramount right, particularly from a non-person. Even if this were a person, a human life, which an embryo does not biologically qualify for, the woman is permitted to protect her person from harm. And much like she can agree to have sex with a guy, even start having sex with a guy, the moment her decision about her body changes, it is enforcable and deadly force, if the smallest amount of force available to protect her person, is permitted.

3. If you can use no force short of killing yet you are practically certian to suvive if you do not kill it the court would not hold up your position
You keep stating this, but it patently false. Imminent death is not a requirement for self-defense killing. In many rape cases and spousal abuse cases, there is little or no chance of death and women are released from responsibility for this all the time. This is because protecting your person and your own life is considered a paramount life. No matter how often you say it, practically certain is not certain. What is CERTAIN is that the woman qualifies as a biological human life and an embryo doesn't. There are arguments that could move the line backwards but moving it to embryo cannot be scientifically supported.

Abortion in this case would not be as emotionally crippling as actually bearing the child and being reminded every moment of his or her existence of the event that befell you. Any emotional side-effect of the abortion itself would be negated in the light of the initial act, never mind compared to the destructive sense of violation you would be haunted by consistently for the next decade.

So your point is debatable on two levels. One, it would be better for the emotionally disturbed woman to abort than to be absolutely devastated in raising the child of the man who tore down the veil of her security. Two, would you really submit a child to a single parent who secretly died every time the two interacted?

Firstly, emotional damage is unquantifiable and thus irrelevent for basing a discussion on. While I agree that what she goes through in both the case of abortion and having the child is traumatic and horrible, no matter how traumatic and emotionally horrible it is it does not give you the right to end a human existance.

Secondly, I agree that the emotional damge is extremely high and would thus submit that the government needs to do a lot more in the way of providing suppot (counsouling etc) to those who consider themselves the victims of a pregnancy as opposed to the benefactors of one


There really is no question that a woman has the right to refuse to bear the child of someone who forced themself upon her against her will. There is no playing God involved in this discussion, unless you assume that God is directly responsible for putting that child there; in which case, the woman has every right to despise him utterly and refuse to do his bidding either.

She is playing God by deciding when a humans's existance should end. No one has that right.

FirstlyShe is playing God by deciding when a humans's existance should end. No one has that right.

Well, except YOU, right? You are playing God by saying a life MUST come into existence the woman MUST act as incubator for that life.

Not a requirement for self-defence. A rape NEVER lasts for nine months and still justifies deadly force.

Rape is a split second decision. See earlier points made about that.


Doesn't matter. Malice is not a requirement, nor is intent. If you are being attacked, even if your attacker does not know better or 'has no choice', it does not matter. Protecting your person is paramount right, particularly from a non-person. Even if this were a person, a human life, which an embryo does not biologically qualify for, the woman is permitted to protect her person from harm. And much like she can agree to have sex with a guy, even start having sex with a guy, the moment her decision about her body changes, it is enforcable and deadly force, if the smallest amount of force available to protect her person, is permitted.

She does not have the right to create the embryo and then destroy it. Self defence is only a valid arguement if the only way to defend yourself is to kill the assaliant. That is not valid here. It is not attacking her. It is only doing what is in its nature to do. Conversely her body is only doing what is in its nature to do by allowing it to be there. Attacking demands damage to the body, and the existance of the embryo is not damage to the body. If it was then the body would move to expell the embryo immidately as it does with all forigen bodies.


You keep stating this, but it patently false. Imminent death is not a requirement for self-defense killing. In many rape cases and spousal abuse cases, there is little or no chance of death and women are released from responsibility for this all the time. This is because protecting your person and your own life is considered a paramount life. No matter how often you say it, practically certain is not certain. What is CERTAIN is that the woman qualifies as a biological human life and an embryo doesn't. There are arguments that could move the line backwards but moving it to embryo cannot be scientifically supported.

The requirement for self defence killing is a momentary decision where killing the assaliant is the only way to ensure your protection. That is not the case with pregancy. There are two ways to ensure your protection. Abortion or allowing the fetus to live. Your arguement only works if you consider the pregnacy an attack on the mother, which it is not. If it were an attack her body would respond in the way it does to an attack of any other kind.

Well, except YOU, right? You are playing God by saying a life MUST come into existence the woman MUST act as incubator for that life.

Grave and me have already had this discussion. By the logic you are using, I am playing God right now by breathing. Playing God means making the decision that a human should die at a specific time. Humans do not have that right. Playing God does not mean continuing the existance of someone.

She is playing God by deciding when a humans's existance should end. No one has that right.
Only if you assume that the human exists independently of its mother significantly long before it is born. Until a specific time in the process, the child isn't sufficiently complex enough to warrant classification as its own spirit any more than your own liver is. It's only when it is developed enough to become a self-sustaining biological system that the child can really be said to be of equal human value to the mother.

Look at it from the other angle; if she has this child, she will almost certainly have no other children due to the emotional damage. Future children have a greater chance of leading a better life if the mother has them when she is ready than if she were to mess up this child's life.

Would you deprive other future children of their chance at the world? Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and in this case, the many will include not only the mother but also any future kids she might otherwise have.

I agree it is sad. I do not reduce the position of women to incubators. I know women are more than that. But being a woman does not give you the right to play God with someone elses existance. It is better for her to be emotionally crippled and the child to live than for here to be emotinally crippled and the child dead (Abortion is equally crippling in many cases). Of course she has a right to decide if she wants a child or not, but if she has one (IE she is pregnant) then she doesnt have the right to end that child's life

No, a right is a thing which a person has and which cannot be taken away from them unless they do something to forfeit it, for example, you have the right to be free unles you commit a crime and are put in prison. Under your rules she wouldn't have a RIGHT to remain childless because that right could be lost through the actions of another.

Also, please stop refering to the embryo as a child, a child (in 99.9% of cases) has fully operational organs and a brain, an embryo has none of these until quite late in pregnancy.

How prey would you define a shade of grey in this case. Dont spout off rhetoric at me.

Actually I was using rhetoric in response to your saying 'two wrongs don't make a right' but I will be happy to elaborate. The analogy of defending yourself from an attacker has already been brought up so I'll use that to explain: killing isn't a good thing but it can be the only good choice in the long run. Killing an assailant to protect myself (or another) would qualify as a shade of grey as it would be a bad act being used in a good cause, I would consider this to be justified.

I would think that killing a rat to preserve a good quality of life for the woman would be justified. If the abortion is peformed early then the embryo will be nowhere near the level of a rat biologically, it isn't even truly alive, let alone sentient.

A salt crystal is not growing or developing in anything like the fashion of a human or any other organic growth system.

Irrelevant. You said that growth and development makes something not dead, not alive, and not inanimate. This is true. It is simply "not alive."

Inanimate is a scientific term, it is to be found in a dictionary and is understood to mean all entities that have none of the qualities of life.

"It's in the dictionary so it must be a scientific term!" Does that mean that "allegory" is a scientific term? No, of course not, it is a literature term.

There is also a way to describe things that have some of the qualities of life but not all of them - not alive.

This new term of G&I "un-dead" or "not-dead" has been made up by him.

GnI has never used the term undead. However, "not alive" is absolutely a technically correct term.