NationStates Jolt Archive

On the injury of pregnant woman and child issue, Biblical support:

Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

And we have mentioned this passage several times. The original language included the concept of miscarriage. This is an issue of damage to the mother, it treats the embryo/fetus/child as a fineable issue and damage to the mother as much more grievous.

On the issue of taking a baby's destiny into our own hands (ending the life):

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

and

Psalm 139:
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

So God has a plan for each individual, even before they are formed in the womb.

And God is so unaware of the future that he cannot take an abortion into that plan and be aware that that fetus will never become a child?

As it was said, but people don't read, the Bible does consider the fetus to be a human being from the moment of conception:

"Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)

Therefore, abortion equals murder, which is forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments.


to clarify this, the fact that a person is sinful from conception is a result of Original Sin, which, since the fall of adam and eve, all humans(except mary) are concieved with and absolved of through baptism.

Original sin is a punishment from God for the fall, and it makes a being human. In order to have original sin, logically the fetus/embryo would have a soul and have the liberty and right to life of any human in the eyes of god.

there is a difference between sinning and having Original Sin.

My opinion on abortion is that early abortion, before a fetus could survive out side of the womb should be legal because it is basically a religious choice whether you see a human at that point of development as a viable person. However, I am against abortion in 99% or cases. Also, i am very avidly against late-term abortion. I myself was born nearly 2 months early and I turned out fine. The fact that people have had abortions(not to save themselves or anything) at that point in pregnancy disgusts me.

This can hardly be accurate, since a fetus has no way of rebelling against God. So either: a fetus is not a sinner or "Rebellion against God" is not a good definition for sin.

It's from the Sceptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm).


The sin a fetus has is Original Sin, which is different from commiting a sinful act, but still, according to christianity, classifies the fetus as human(in the image of god human, not just biologically human specimen), and thusly the intentional termination of the fetus as murder

On the injury of pregnant woman and child issue, Biblical support:

Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

It has already been demonstrated in this thread that the word translated here as "gives birth prematurely" has traditionally been translated as a miscarriage - and can be seen that way.

On the issue of taking a baby's destiny into our own hands (ending the life):

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

Obviously, God knew that this person wasn't going to be aborted. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been a prophet, eh?

and

Psalm 139:
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Once again, obviously not the result of an abortion.

So God has a plan for each individual, even before they are formed in the womb.

Yes, and God knows which fetuses will and will not be aborted - and which women will abort. Must be part of the plan then, eh?


Mary herself was born without original sin?

If thats what you meant to say I have NEVER seen that supported by scripture ... care to now?

It is the stance of the Catholic Church. Christ had to be born without original sin, but the two ways it could be passed (according to Catholic doctrine from Augustine) was in the seed of the man or in the birth canal. Thus, Christ could not come from the seed of a man - that would taint Him. He also could not pass through the birth canal of a woman with Original Sin - as that would taint him. There was a theory among a few theologians that Christ popped straight outward from Mary's side, without passing through the birth canal, but that one got outvoted, as it were, in favor of simply saying that Mary was, herself, the product of a Virgin birth, and thus also without sin. They haven't yet addressed how Mary didn't get tainted by her own mother....

The thing is that we are talking about people who want to legislate something vs. those who do not. The default in our system for any action is that it is legal until a law is made to the contrary. Thus, it is those who wish to make it illegal that must support their case, as they are the ones trying to legislate upon others.


I understand the importance of protecting individual liberty and preventing the unnecessary force of government. "Moral" and "legal," however, are not the same thing. As such, this assumption that serves as the "default" for our system could potentially allow an immoral action (of whatever kind) to proceed legally and unchallenged. The morality of a given activity does not depend on the result of a democratic (or other) political process. History is replete with examples of the minority who had to suffer injustice enforced by a majority who assumed the legality of their behavior.

to clarify this, the fact that a person is sinful from conception is a result of Original Sin, which, since the fall of adam and eve, all humans(except mary) are concieved with and absolved of through baptism.

Original sin is a punishment from God for the fall, and it makes a being human. In order to have original sin, logically the fetus/embryo would have a soul and have the liberty and right to life of any human in the eyes of god.

there is a difference between sinning and having Original Sin.

Not all Christians agree with the Augustinian view on original sin - just a heads-up.

My opinion on abortion is that early abortion, before a fetus could survive out side of the womb should be legal because it is basically a religious choice whether you see a human at that point of development as a viable person. However, I am against abortion in 99% or cases. Also, i am very avidly against late-term abortion. I myself was born nearly 2 months early and I turned out fine. The fact that people have had abortions(not to save themselves or anything) at that point in pregnancy disgusts me.

People don't have abortions that late for anything but medical reasons - not legally anyways.

I understand the importance of protecting individual liberty and preventing the unnecessary force of government. "Moral" and "legal," however, are not the same thing. As such, this assumption that serves as the "default" for our system could potentially allow an immoral action (of whatever kind) to proceed legally and unchallenged. The morality of a given activity does not depend on the result of a democratic (or other) political process. History is replete with examples of the minority who had to suffer injustice enforced by a majority who assumed the legality of their behavior.

Yes, but the problem here is there is no evidence there is a 'minority' or any party at all being harmed. In the absense of another party, we must err on the side of the rights of the individual or at least we should.

I understand the importance of protecting individual liberty and preventing the unnecessary force of government. "Moral" and "legal," however, are not the same thing. As such, this assumption that serves as the "default" for our system could potentially allow an immoral action (of whatever kind) to proceed legally and unchallenged. The morality of a given activity does not depend on the result of a democratic (or other) political process. History is replete with examples of the minority who had to suffer injustice enforced by a majority who assumed the legality of their behavior.

I never said that moral and legal are the same thing - which is why it is perfectly possible for someone to be pro-choice and anti-abortion all at once. Our laws allow all sorts of actions I think are immoral, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of legislating my morality upon others.

no.

"though shalt not murder", and abortion isn't murder.

The key here is not Biblical. What makes a human a human? Well, quite simply, it is its DNA. The DNA of a 1 day old embryo is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE 50 YEARS LATER! How can a person claim to be civilized and yet advocate the right to MURDER an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? Some may bring up the death penalty, well, that is used on murderers and rapists, convicted in a court of law. Forget the Bible for a minute. Science proves that from the moment of conception, it is a human life. The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention anything anywhere about a so-called "right to privacy". This is a perversion of the 4th Ammendment, made by an activist court with a Liberal agenda. This is arguably the most contreversial issue in America, it is tearing us apart in more ways than you know. The fact that every time any legislation is introduced to restrict abortion, Liberals go nuts saying that this will deal a huge blow to our civil rights just proves that they are in the minority. Here's a novel idea: lets have a nationwide referendum on the issue. Oh, wait, Liberals know they will lose on this issue, so they fear it and tie it up in the courts every time. So much for being all for civil rights, huh. In all, we must all realize that it is not size, weight, or age of the unborn child, it is its DNA. You science worshiping Liberals out there need to listen to your own preaches when they tell you that from the instant of fertilization, it is a HUMAN! And I think we would all agree that murder is wrong, couldn't we?

The key here is not Biblical. What makes a human a human? Well, quite simply, it is its DNA. The DNA of a 1 day old embryo is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE 50 YEARS LATER! How can a person claim to be civilized and yet advocate the right to MURDER an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? Some may bring up the death penalty, well, that is used on murderers and rapists, convicted in a court of law. Forget the Bible for a minute. Science proves that from the moment of conception, it is a human life. The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention anything anywhere about a so-called "right to privacy". This is a perversion of the 4th Ammendment, made by an activist court with a Liberal agenda. This is arguably the most contreversial issue in America, it is tearing us apart in more ways than you know. The fact that every time any legislation is introduced to restrict abortion, Liberals go nuts saying that this will deal a huge blow to our civil rights just proves that they are in the minority. Here's a novel idea: lets have a nationwide referendum on the issue. Oh, wait, Liberals know they will lose on this issue, so they fear it and tie it up in the courts every time. So much for being all for civil rights, huh. In all, we must all realize that it is not size, weight, or age of the unborn child, it is its DNA. You science worshiping Liberals out there need to listen to your own preaches when they tell you that from the instant of ferti;ization, it is a HUMAN! And I think we would all agree that murder is wrong, couldn't we?

while i'm not so sure about the human life part yeah it is for sure a peversion of the 4th ammendmant.

The key here is not Biblical. What makes a human a human? Well, quite simply, it is its DNA. The DNA of a 1 day old embryo is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE 50 YEARS LATER! How can a person claim to be civilized and yet advocate the right to MURDER an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? Some may bring up the death penalty, well, that is used on murderers and rapists, convicted in a court of law. Forget the Bible for a minute. Science proves that from the moment of conception, it is a human life. The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention anything anywhere about a so-called "right to privacy". This is a perversion of the 4th Ammendment, made by an activist court with a Liberal agenda. This is arguably the most contreversial issue in America, it is tearing us apart in more ways than you know. The fact that every time any legislation is introduced to restrict abortion, Liberals go nuts saying that this will deal a huge blow to our civil rights just proves that they are in the minority. Here's a novel idea: lets have a nationwide referendum on the issue. Oh, wait, Liberals know they will lose on this issue, so they fear it and tie it up in the courts every time. So much for being all for civil rights, huh. In all, we must all realize that it is not size, weight, or age of the unborn child, it is its DNA. You science worshiping Liberals out there need to listen to your own preaches when they tell you that from the instant of ferti;ization, it is a HUMAN! And I think we would all agree that murder is wrong, couldn't we?

DNA? Then did I murder my tonsils when I had them out twenty years ago?

Can you please show where the fourth amendment was invoked in the Roe v. Wade argument?

You really should educate yourself on an issue before you rant on a forum that is so ripe with individuals who will point out your follies.

If god truly is omniscent, if god truly is omnipowerful, if god truly was pissed off that we have changed since our (for lack of a better word) creation why does (once again for lack of a better word)* it destroy us. Supposedly god has the power to destroy life if it is its will, so then by logic shouldnt it be able to destroy us all in some form or another and maybe start over if it felt like it.Also on another note this entire argument assumes that the bible is the building block for all laws and rules when in actuality that is someones opinion not a solid truth therefor one would need to go off and search every religious text for some mention of abortion to truly claim that abortion isnt religiously correct.
And to the post above me you also forget that th DNA is the same when the fetus is developing, when the person is alive, AND WHEN THE PERSON IS DEAD!

The key here is not Biblical. What makes a human a human? Well, quite simply, it is its DNA. The DNA of a 1 day old embryo is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE 50 YEARS LATER! How can a person claim to be civilized and yet advocate the right to MURDER an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? Some may bring up the death penalty, well, that is used on murderers and rapists, convicted in a court of law. Forget the Bible for a minute. Science proves that from the moment of conception, it is a human life. The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention anything anywhere about a so-called "right to privacy". This is a perversion of the 4th Ammendment, made by an activist court with a Liberal agenda. This is arguably the most contreversial issue in America, it is tearing us apart in more ways than you know. The fact that every time any legislation is introduced to restrict abortion, Liberals go nuts saying that this will deal a huge blow to our civil rights just proves that they are in the minority. Here's a novel idea: lets have a nationwide referendum on the issue. Oh, wait, Liberals know they will lose on this issue, so they fear it and tie it up in the courts every time. So much for being all for civil rights, huh. In all, we must all realize that it is not size, weight, or age of the unborn child, it is its DNA. You science worshiping Liberals out there need to listen to your own preaches when they tell you that from the instant of fertilization, it is a HUMAN! And I think we would all agree that murder is wrong, couldn't we?

Human rights should NEVER be subject to a popularity contest to decide.
(The rest of this “post” Ill leave be its not worth the time)

the 4th ammendment wasnt invoked in the case. But it is now a key part of the Liberals defence of this abominable practice.

DNA? Then did I murder my tonsils when I had them out twenty years ago?

Can you please show where the fourth amendment was invoked in the Roe v. Wade argument?

You really should educate yourself on an issue before you rant on a forum that is so ripe with individuals who will point out your follies.

No i think his point was that it's a seperate peice of DNA from yourself, while your tonsils are not.

Also, if the privacy issue wasn't talking about the 4th ammendmant, then what was it talking about? it has to be somewhere in the bill of rights or else the federal government could not corce the states to accept the ruling. or atleast not rationally do that.

finally, someone with reason

No i think his point was that it's a seperate peice of DNA from yourself, while your tonsils are not.

Also, if the privacy issue wasn't talking about the 4th ammendmant, then what was it talking about? it has to be somewhere in the bill of rights or else the federal government could not corce the states to accept the ruling. or atleast not rationally do that.
BSthere are genetic differences in all sorts of “parts” of you

For example Cancer can have a different DNA then its host

finally, someone with reason
Yeah I know I try

On the injury of pregnant woman and child issue, Biblical support:

Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

On the issue of taking a baby's destiny into our own hands (ending the life):

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

and

Psalm 139:
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

So God has a plan for each individual, even before they are formed in the womb.
thank you.

i dont suppose you know anything about the deuteronomy verses that the other guy was talking about?

actually the bible speaks of the value of life mannny times throughout the whole thing which could be used to explain the reason for pro-lifers and certain things are pretty much implied so to say the bible is ok with slaughtering thousands of children is pretty ridiculous.........

Well, quite simply, it is its DNA.

Ok then, cancer, human excrement, and my arm are all human beings.

The DNA of a 1 day old embryo is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE 50 YEARS LATER!

Incorrect. All sorts of changes will be made to the DNA between now and then.

How can a person claim to be civilized and yet advocate the right to MURDER an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE?

Good question. But I haven't seen anyone advocating that.

Some may bring up the death penalty, well, that is used on murderers and rapists, convicted in a court of law.

...except you.

Science proves that from the moment of conception, it is a human life.

No, it doesn't.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention anything anywhere about a so-called "right to privacy".

It doesn't mention the right to have children or the right to ride my bicycle either.

This is a perversion of the 4th Ammendment, made by an activist court with a Liberal agenda.

Hardly. The 4th Amendment, last time I checked, wasn't even involved.

The fact that every time any legislation is introduced to restrict abortion, Liberals go nuts saying that this will deal a huge blow to our civil rights just proves that they are in the minority.

Every recent poll suggests that the majority are opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. The majority also support *some* restrictions. Of course, every restricting law is not challenged. For instance, how many people do you see challenging the restrictions on late-term abortions that make it illegal to have them electively?

Here's a novel idea: lets have a nationwide referendum on the issue. Oh, wait, Liberals know they will lose on this issue, so they fear it and tie it up in the courts every time.

From all the recent polls, it looks like Roe would stand.

So much for being all for civil rights, huh. In all, we must all realize that it is not size, weight, or age of the unborn child, it is its DNA. You science worshiping Liberals out there need to listen to your own preaches when they tell you that from the instant of fertilization, it is a HUMAN! And I think we would all agree that murder is wrong, couldn't we?

No scientist has ever told me that, and I talk to and read a lot of them. Meanwhile, if DNA is all it takes, then we have to start giving my bowel movements human rights...

If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. if you cant dispute the facts in my post, then YOU are wrong. So dispute them with viable arguements and not nitpick details of my wording, or accept them. Simple as that.

We are drawing conclusions about the attitude toward the fetus.


Is it not possible that the authors of the Bible might have drawn different conclusions if the situaiton was one of willful termination? This is my point: it appears that one example of one specific situation is being used to draw a conclusion of the Bible's attitude toward fetuses in general. This assumption is not safe, especially considering that the Bible appears to be otherwise silent on the issue.

Arguing from the Christian perspective, the New Testament presents plenty of examples of Jesus' concern for children: "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Why should God show such concern for children, but apparently show no concern for the unborn?

BSthere are genetic differences in all sorts of “parts” of you

For example Cancer can have a different DNA then its host

yes but i think it's quite obvious that the overall genetic coding is different for the cell/zygote/phetus than for your tonsils or your your liver. in one case its destroying the whole (abortion) while in another case it's only destroying a part (scraping your tonsils)

of, course, i've sort of changed my mind on abortion. i believe the philsophical complexeties make this far to complex for the government to rule upon, so i wouldn't really support banning it. then again i wouldn't oppose it either.

If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. if you cant dispute the facts in my post, then YOU are wrong. So dispute them with viable arguements and not nitpick details of my wording, or accept them. Simple as that.
Depub did ... quite well I may add.

Though your “argument” hardly deserved the time she spent

Is it not possible that the authors of the Bible might have drawn different conclusions if the situaiton was one of willful termination? This is my point: it appears that one example of one specific situation is being used to draw a conclusion of the Bible's attitude toward fetuses in general. This assumption is not safe, especially considering that the Bible appears to be otherwise silent on the issue.

Arguing from the Christian perspective, the New Testament presents plenty of examples of Jesus' concern for children: "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Why should God show such concern for children, but apparently show no concern for the unborn?
Why does the bible project a lot of confusing “intent” on this “God” figure?

Why would god care what sort of clothing you wore or how you cut your hair? I don't know but if the bible is to be trusted at one point he did.

Mary herself was born without original sin?

If thats what you meant to say I have NEVER seen that supported by scripture ... care to now?
its catholic dogma

its not spelled out in the bible but it can be inferred from certain verses.

if you CARE whether or not mary was conceived without original sin, you can look up the justification on a catholic website.

my opinion of the whole thing is that people who are pro life like me arn't going to care what you say about how fetus's arn't human and pro-choice people arn't going to care about what i have to say because most people unless they're just stupid have pretty firm beliefs on the big issues...

Yes, but the problem here is there is no evidence there is a 'minority' or any party at all being harmed.


In the context of the issue of abortion, what constitutes "harm?"

if you cant dispute the facts in my post, then YOU are wrong.

This does not follow. Not knowing how to counter your argument does not mean it cannot so be countered. You are correct if you present truth, not if you win an argument.

its catholic dogma

its not spelled out in the bible but it can be inferred from certain verses.

if you CARE whether or not mary was conceived without original sin, you can look up the justification on a catholic website.
I never heard this even when I was catholic? Supposedly Jesus was the only person completely without sin

(I went looking and found lots of stuff but nothing claiming she was without origional sin maybe I just did not see it)

actually the bible speaks of the value of life mannny times throughout the whole thing which could be used to explain the reason for pro-lifers and certain things are pretty much implied so to say the bible is ok with slaughtering thousands of children is pretty ridiculous.........

The Bible is ok with slaughtering children, just read 2 Samuel 15, 1-11.

I never said that moral and legal are the same thing


And I did not mean to accuse you of such. I was simply presenting a premise necessary to my argument.


Our laws allow all sorts of actions I think are immoral, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of legislating my morality upon others.

But "legislating my morality" is the entire point of law. The purpose of law is to prevent me from engaging in undesired behavior. As such, its purpose is to make me conform to someone's accepted standards of morality. One cannot have law and not legislate his or her morality. Unless one is an anarchist, I suppose.

No i think his point was that it's a seperate peice of DNA from yourself, while your tonsils are not.

Also, if the privacy issue wasn't talking about the 4th ammendmant, then what was it talking about? it has to be somewhere in the bill of rights or else the federal government could not corce the states to accept the ruling. or atleast not rationally do that.

Um, your lack of knowledge on the subject is staggering. Try checking out the 9th amendment. The federal government didn't govern on the issue, it upheld a right held by the individual. It can do the same for the states. This is not the same as making a right federal no matter how many who wish to act like this is a states v federal issue wish it to be so. The federal government gave the right to the individual. The states are arguing that this right should be taken away from the individual and given to the states.

If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. if you cant dispute the facts in my post, then YOU are wrong. So dispute them with viable arguements and not nitpick details of my wording, or accept them. Simple as that.

How amusing that two people had already done so when you posted this little gem.

Ok then, cancer, human excrement, and my arm are all human beings.

*nitpick.

Incorrect. All sorts of changes will be made to the DNA between now and then.

*you miss the point. The basic human DNA DOES NOT EVER CHANGE

Good question. But I haven't seen anyone advocating that.

*what do YOU call abortion then?

...except you.

*so murderers and rapists should be allowed to live off the taxpayers whom they wronged, while justice is left undone?

No, it doesn't.

*Yes it does. Read this:

BIOETHICS
Cloning Proves Life Begins At Conception
By Kelly Hollowell, JD, PhD
Science Ministries, Inc.



CBN.com – Most doctors and lawmakers recognize cloning as a technological breakthrough that adds a new dimension to reproductive technology. Few realize that cloning also proves that life begins at conception!

Cloning technology is simple to understand. All cells containing DNA have 46 chromosomes except the sperm and egg, which have only 23 chromosomes each. In natural conception, 23 chromosomes of the sperm and 23 chromosomes of the egg unite to create a single cell embryo containing 46 chromosomes. The genetic makeup of every living human being is determined when the sperm and egg unite. This is commonly known as the point of conception.

Conversely, in cloning, one adult cell containing 46 chromosomes is isolated from a donor. The DNA or genetic material comprising 46 chromosomes is removed from the donor cell. Similarly, a recipient egg is selected, isolated and the 23 chromosomes of a recipient egg are removed and discarded. The 46 chromosomes of the donor cell are introduced into the now empty (enucleated) egg. This is the point of conception! Therefore, the moment the 46 chromosomes of the donor cell are introduced into the enucleated egg, a single cell embryological twin of the donor has been created.

This twin cannot become anything but a genetic duplicate of the donor. It is set on a predetermined pathway of life. It cannot have different eye color. It cannot have different hair color. It is a carbon copy in every physiological respect.

Remember Dolly? The moment that a complete set of chromosomes was introduced into an enucleated egg to create Dolly, the Dolly embryo developed in a manner identical to the donor years earlier. The DNA determined that Dolly would be a sheep physically identical to the donor. In other words, as the cells multiplied and divided, even from a single cell, the embryo followed the exact same path of development the donor followed when the donor was an embryo years earlier. It is clear, then, that the development of Dolly and all individual life is encoded in the genetic material itself and that life is sparked or ignited like a switch the moment an egg contains a complete set of chromosomes.

In view of this analysis, there is but one conclusion. Cloning proves life begins at conception. Therefore, the scientific breakthrough of cloning requires a new and fresh look at laws concerning the unborn, specifically abortion.


It doesn't mention the right to have children or the right to ride my bicycle either.

*More nitpick

Hardly. The 4th Amendment, last time I checked, wasn't even involved.

*then where do you get the right to have one?

Every recent poll suggests that the majority are opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. The majority also support *some* restrictions. Of course, every restricting law is not challenged. For instance, how many people do you see challenging the restrictions on late-term abortions that make it illegal to have them electively?

*http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
go here and see a nearly 20 point lead by those who want stricter rules or abolition of abortion

From all the recent polls, it looks like Roe would stand.

*again, go here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

No scientist has ever told me that, and I talk to and read a lot of them. Meanwhile, if DNA is all it takes, then we have to start giving my bowel movements human rights...

*again with the nitpick


Is that all you got?

In the context of the issue of abortion, what constitutes "harm?"

The issue is what constitutes a party. There is only the women and she should be permitted to make decisions about her body unless those decisions A) endanger another party or B) endanger the woman. An abortion is less dangerous than a pregnancy so there is really no argument for intervention here.

Is that all you got?
Jesus Christ could you make that bad refutation be any harder to read?

Is that all you got?

Ah. I get it. You're trolling. Go away.

Um, your lack of knowledge on the subject is staggering. Try checking out the 9th amendment. The federal government didn't govern on the issue, it upheld a right held by the individual. It can do the same for the states. This is not the same as making a right federal no matter how many who wish to act like this is a states v federal issue wish it to be so. The federal government gave the right to the individual. The states are arguing that this right should be taken away from the individual and given to the states.

There is no constitutional right to abortion, and the 9th ammendmant only applies if there is no federal legislation upon the subject. plus the 10th ammendmant clearly gives the states the rights to rule (barring the lack of federal legislation), and to overrule the states is in overstep in the bounds of the federal government.

individuals only retain rights not enumerated if both the federal government and the state governments do not legislate upon the matter.

If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. if you cant dispute the facts in my post, then YOU are wrong. So dispute them with viable arguements and not nitpick details of my wording, or accept them. Simple as that.

Um, I did. There weren't many "facts" to speak of in your post, though.


Is it not possible that the authors of the Bible might have drawn different conclusions if the situaiton was one of willful termination?

The value of a human life doesn't change between accidental death and willful death - it stays the same. If an accidental death of a born human being were simply a fine, then no conclusion about the attitude toward the fetus could be drawn. However, accidental death of a born human being was met with death of the person who caused it, while accidental miscarriage was not. This is an incredibly clear distinction between born human beings and fetuses.

Arguing from the Christian perspective, the New Testament presents plenty of examples of Jesus' concern for children: "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Why should God show such concern for children, but apparently show no concern for the unborn?

I never said that God had no concern for the unborn. Of course, the unborn are not children - they are the unborn. Thus, the concern may be different.

But "legislating my morality" is the entire point of law. The purpose of law is to prevent me from engaging in undesired behavior. As such, its purpose is to make me conform to someone's accepted standards of morality. One cannot have law and not legislate his or her morality. Unless one is an anarchist, I suppose.

No, it is not the entire point of law. The point of government (and therefore law) is to protect the citizens of the country. No one makes you conform to anyone else's morality - the law simply keeps you from endangering or harming other human beings. Your morality is your own - you simply cannot do anything with it that harms others...

If "legislating morality" were the entire point of law, it would be perfectly constitutional for a majority strict Muslim county to decide that all women in their county could be forced to wear a burqua and not be allowed to work...

Is it not possible that the authors of the Bible might have drawn different conclusions if the situaiton was one of willful termination? This is my point: it appears that one example of one specific situation is being used to draw a conclusion of the Bible's attitude toward fetuses in general. This assumption is not safe, especially considering that the Bible appears to be otherwise silent on the issue.

Arguing from the Christian perspective, the New Testament presents plenty of examples of Jesus' concern for children: "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Why should God show such concern for children, but apparently show no concern for the unborn?

Regardless, of what you claim is 'possible', it's very clear that they do not view a fetus as equal in any way to a person and they treat it very similarly to property (the punishment is actually similar to if I broke someones table). No matter how many claim otherwise, the Bible does not regard the unborn as a person.

If you're against abortion, don't have one.

DNA? Then did I murder my tonsils when I had them out twenty years ago?


A fetus possesses the potential to become an individual human being, whereas a tonsil does not. Noting the differing DNA between fetus and mother establishes the individuality of the fetus as an entity seperate from the mother. Yes, the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, but this does not eliminate his or her individuality. A newborn infant, a 5 year-old, and a jobless college student ( :D ) are also dependent on their parents, yet they are individuals considered seperately from their mothers.

The point is to counter the idea, which I have heard presented elsewhere, that the fetus is just another part of the mother's body, and therefore the mother has the right to remove this part.

if you're against murder, don't do it.

flawed reasoning.

I never heard this even when I was catholic? Supposedly Jesus was the only person completely without sin

(I went looking and found lots of stuff but nothing claiming she was without origional sin maybe I just did not see it)
if you were catholic then you must have gone to church on the feast of the immaculate conception (dec.8th)

that the conception of mary, not the conception of jesus.


try http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

It certainly would be better to give a child up for adoption than to keep one that you cannot (or will not) take care of. I just don't think that adoption is really the "repsonsible" choice, as it involves taking a responsibility that should be yours and giving it to others. And all adoptions aren't set up before birth - the birth mother doesn't necessarily know that there will be any loving home in the future of her child.

Meanwhile, I have to admit that I don't put much stock in those "loving couples" who say they want to give a child a loving, stable home, but wait for years for an infant when they could adopt a child who needs a home *now*.


Taking an infant means that a couple can pass the child off as their own, avoid any bad habits learned from foster homes, or picked up bad attitudes as a result of rape and molestation (sad but it happens). Adopting an older child is much more difficult as well. There is usually no one there to relinquish parental rights, so the adoption is at the discretion of the state, which can be much more discerning about the type of people they choose to allow to adopt a child. It's also, in a large part, up to the child herself - does she want to be part of this family? Could a couple, who have been working towards adopting an older child cope with the loss when the child herself rejects them as her parents? How would you feel if your own child turned to you and told you that he/she wanted to go live with someone else? It happened to my mother when both me and my sister were young, and she cried for weeks, it was just a phase we went through, but it was really upseting for her.

There was a tragic story of a family who took a child into foster care. They took good care of him, gave him all the love, care and attention that their natural children had. But several months into the care scheme, when his adoption papers had been submitted, it was found that he was raping and molesting both their youngest daughter and son, telling each of them that if they said anything, he'd turn on the other. He had had a horrible time in other foster homes, being raped by a previous care taker. The heart ache caused by the tragedy broke up the family. He was placed back in a foster home, and stayed there till his 18th birthday, when he was shoved out on the street, the state not caring anymore. Adopting an older child holds fears for couples that something similar to this scenario might happen with them, regardless of how unlikely it is.

No not all adoptions are set up before birth, but the more responsible parents to be will make arrangements for the child to be taken home soon after birth by the adoptive parents, open adoptions becoming more popular because it allows the birth mother to have a say in who raises her child, and for the birth mother, in some cases to have contact with their children after the adoption, at the discretion of the adoptive parents, of course. I will agree with you, people who leave their newborns in a basket on the steps of a police station, orphanage or in a hedgerow somewhere are highly irresponsible and should never allow themselves to come to full term and give birth only to give it up in such a cruel and horrible way. But if adoption is done right, everyone benefits.

What if you find out, in a few years from now, that you can't have children? I hope you never go through the pain of not being able to have your own children, but somewhere in there, the choice to adopt will be mentioned, and I can almost guarantee you that your first choice will be an infant.

if you're against murder, don't do it.

flawed reasoning.

What's flawed about this statement? It makes sense that if I oppose an activity, I will not engage in it.

so if you saw someone about to commit a terrible crime, you would not put a stop to it?

the pleasure is so that species will procreate. If there were no pleasure in it, species especially like humans who are in no threat whatsoever of extinction would have no reason to continue procreation.

What about the urge to procreate? When a couple want a child, they don't think about the brief moment of pleasure they'll have during the actual act, but of the long term consequences - ie giving birth to the next generation.

There is no constitutional right to abortion, and the 9th ammendmant only applies if there is no federal legislation upon the subject. plus the 10th ammendmant clearly gives the states the rights to rule (barring the lack of federal legislation), and to overrule the states is in overstep in the bounds of the federal government.

individuals only retain rights not enumerated if both the federal government and the state governments do not legislate upon the matter.

bump, jocabia, for my "staggering lack of knowledge"

This is the same shit I've been trying to tell pro-lifers for years.

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.

And so will the kid...
And if that kid, being unwanted, is raised wrong, so will society at large...
Then my governator will want to raise taxes to build more prisons...

(yes, that's a damn simplistic way of putting it, but oh well.)

Sorry, maybe I shouldn't be participating. I'm pro-abortion.

There is no constitutional right to abortion, and the 9th ammendmant only applies if there is no federal legislation upon the subject. plus the 10th ammendmant clearly gives the states the rights to rule (barring the lack of federal legislation), and to overrule the states is in overstep in the bounds of the federal government.

individuals only retain rights not enumerated if both the federal government and the state governments do not legislate upon the matter.
Um, it does no such thing. The ninth and the tenth do not say what you claim. I'll help you out here, since you cannot be arsed to educate yourself.

The ninth amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it's not specifically stated in the US Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right held by the people, like the right to privacy. So this totally negates your silly "it's not in the Constitution" argument and is the stated purpose of the amendment.

The tenth amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

OR TO THE PEOPLE. Why is it that so many anti-choice people seem to overlook that very important phrase. In other words, if it's not specifically stated in the US Constitution, the ninth amendment says that it may still be protected by the Constitution as being in the spirit of the document and the tenth amendment says that that where a power is not given to the federal goverment it may be handled at a more local level or it can be reserved to the individual. In this case this non-enumerated right, like the right to marriage and a number of other rights, is reserved to the person.

if you're against murder, don't do it.

flawed reasoning.
no really its not.

murder being a legal definition....

if you think that a particular type of homicide...say killing the enemy in war... is murder (or immoral killing if not legal murder) you dont do it.

if its LEGAL, then its up to you to decide whether or not to do it. there are all sorts of legal justifications for killing another human being. if you dont find these to be moral, you dont do them.

abortion being legal, its up to YOU to decide whether or not its for you. if you think its immoral killing, then dont do it. let those who find it to be a moral decision do as they think is right.

You know, quote tags are your friend.

*nitpick.

Hardly. It is integral to your argument. If your entire argument is "Human DNA = human person," then all of that is true. Otherwise, you have to come up with a new definition.

you miss the point. The basic human DNA DOES NOT EVER CHANGE

Have you ever heard of a chimera?

what do YOU call abortion then?

Abortion.

so murderers and rapists should be allowed to live off the taxpayers whom they wronged, while justice is left undone?

Can you prove that every single person on death row is absolutely, 100% guilty? Keep in mind that DNA evidence has exonerated people who were to be put to death...

How many people do you think we have put to death who were innocent of the crimes they had committed?

*Yes it does. Read this:

BIOETHICS
Cloning Proves Life Begins At Conception
By Kelly Hollowell, JD, PhD
Science Ministries, Inc.

"Science Ministries"???? LOL! You've just proven that this is religion, not science. But let's take a look anyways.

*snip irrelevant stuff that most people involved would know*[/quote]

This twin cannot become anything but a genetic duplicate of the donor. It is set on a predetermined pathway of life. It cannot have different eye color. It cannot have different hair color. It is a carbon copy in every physiological respect.

Besides being irrelevant, this is absolutely incorrect. Hair color and eye color are, as are many physiological traits, largely controlled by epigenetic traits. It is perfectly possible for a cloned person to have a different hair color or eye color. Have you ever seen the cloned cats? They look very different from the cat they were being cloned from.

Remember Dolly? The moment that a complete set of chromosomes was introduced into an enucleated egg to create Dolly, the Dolly embryo developed in a manner identical to the donor years earlier. The DNA determined that Dolly would be a sheep physically identical to the donor. In other words, as the cells multiplied and divided, even from a single cell, the embryo followed the exact same path of development the donor followed when the donor was an embryo years earlier. It is clear, then, that the development of Dolly and all individual life is encoded in the genetic material itself and that life is sparked or ignited like a switch the moment an egg contains a complete set of chromosomes.

Once again, an incredible lack of understanding about epigenetics, and still irrelevant.

In view of this analysis, there is but one conclusion. Cloning proves life begins at conception. Therefore, the scientific breakthrough of cloning requires a new and fresh look at laws concerning the unborn, specifically abortion.

This is the most idiotic conclusion I have ever heard. It's like me saying, "The old person I will become is already determined. My genetic predilictions have determined that I will one day get Alzheimer's. Therefore, old age starts at conception."

More nitpick

Not at all. If a right has to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, then these rights do not exist.

then where do you get the right to have one?

From the right to control your own body - namely based in the 9th and 14th amendments.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
go here and see a nearly 20 point lead by those who want stricter rules or abolition of abortion

Actually, very few want to abolish it - about 20%, actually. And stricter limits can be placed in most states - even within the confines of Roe.

again with the nitpick

Apparently, "Nitpick" to you means "logic and attention to detail." In that case, if you want to make a scientific argument, you better learn to "nitpick".

Is that all you got?

Obviously, it is enough, considering that you weren't able to refute a single thing.

No one makes you conform to anyone else's morality - the law simply keeps you from endangering or harming other human beings.


Isn't the desire to keep me from harming other human beings an expression of a moral value? It is wrong, or unacceptable, to endanger or harm other human beings unnecessarily. <--- someone's morality is being legislated here.


If "legislating morality" were the entire point of law, it would be perfectly constitutional for a majority strict Muslim county to decide that all women in their county could be forced to wear a burqua and not be allowed to work...


It seems that "morality" is being defined as "religion." I have always understood "morality" to be nothing more than that which helps me decide what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior (for instance, it is not acceptable to needlessly endanger or harm another human being...) My moral framework can be defined by or based on a religion, but not necessarily so.

bump, jocabia, for my "staggering lack of knowledge"

You proved it. You miscited the amendments for one thing. There is nothing in the ninth that mentions legislation at all and it has nothing to do with legislation. The ninth is simply to point out that the bill of rights is not all inclusive. I challenge you to find a single Supreme Court case or even a dissenter that supports your assertion.

Seriously, what are they teaching high school students these days? I was required to memorize the amendments in school and we had standardized testing on the subject that we were required to pass before we could graduate.

This may have been mention already; I didn't feel like reading through 20 pages of replies:
Abortion is legal in Canada, and we haven't been struck down by God yet.

Sorry, maybe I shouldn't be participating. I'm pro-abortion.

No, you'll offer the other side of the arguement, please join in...

A fetus possesses the potential to become an individual human being, whereas a tonsil does not. Noting the differing DNA between fetus and mother establishes the individuality of the fetus as an entity seperate from the mother. Yes, the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, but this does not eliminate his or her individuality. A newborn infant, a 5 year-old, and a jobless college student ( :D ) are also dependent on their parents, yet they are individuals considered seperately from their mothers.

The point is to counter the idea, which I have heard presented elsewhere, that the fetus is just another part of the mother's body, and therefore the mother has the right to remove this part.

Is a twin one person or two? A chimera one person or two? The problem isn't dependence. The problem is that the embryo and early fetus do not qualify as alive by the definition for life in biology.

Now I notice that you add potential to the argument, which is constantly debunked. Again, this means that we might as well allow people to have sex with 5-year-olds because they have the potential to become adults and consent. The woman who was convicted of raping a freshman in high school and then married him should obviously never have been convicted because it was obvious he was going to marry her as evidenced by the fact that he did.

Potential arguments suck because from the moment a woman decides to get an abortion the only potential an embryo has is to the potential to NEVER be a child.

Um, it does no such thing. The ninth and the tenth do not say what you claim. I'll help you out here, since you cannot be arsed to educate yourself.

don't be an asshole, i know the constitution and what it says

The ninth amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it's not specifically stated in the US Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right held by the people, like the right to privacy. So this totally negates your silly "it's not in the Constitution" argument and is the stated purpose of the amendment.

The tenth amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

OR TO THE PEOPLE. Why is it that so many anti-choice people seem to overlook that very important phrase. In other words, if it's not specifically stated in the US Constitution, the ninth amendment says that it may still be protected by the Constitution as being in the spirit of the document and the tenth amendment says that that where a power is not given to the federal goverment it may be handled at a more local level or it can be reserved to the individual. In this case this non-enumerated right, like the right to marriage and a number of other rights, is reserved to the person.

Yes, but it also gives room for the federal and state governments to legislate. thinking other wise would never allow our government to operate in the way it does. our government would be frozen in it's ability.

For instance, do i retain the right to not pay taxes for programms i disagree with? it's not in the constitution, BUT THE 9TH AMMENDMANT SAYS...

No, that's not how our government works. the 9th ammendmant protects us from being denied rights not legislated, this does not limit congresses ability to make new laws limiting unsaid rights. the tenth ammednmant extends this ability to the states, and states that the states cannot take away rights without legislating.

A fetus possesses the potential to become an individual human being, whereas a tonsil does not.

I have the potential to become an elderly person. Can I file for social security right now?


Taking an infant means that a couple can pass the child off as their own, avoid any bad habits learned from foster homes, or picked up bad attitudes as a result of rape and molestation (sad but it happens).

So you prove my point. It isn't about the child, but about what the parents want. They want to be able to pretend that they actually had a child (a really bad idea by the way - it almost always ends badly) and they want a child that might not be any problem.

Adopting an older child is much more difficult as well. There is usually no one there to relinquish parental rights, so the adoption is at the discretion of the state, which can be much more discerning about the type of people they choose to allow to adopt a child.

Once again, it obviously isn't about the child. Not to mention that even an infant adoption is largely at the discretion of the state. Even parents paired up with a prospective mother are screened quite a bit.

It's also, in a large part, up to the child herself - does she want to be part of this family? Could a couple, who have been working towards adopting an older child cope with the loss when the child herself rejects them as her parents? How would you feel if your own child turned to you and told you that he/she wanted to go live with someone else? It happened to my mother when both me and my sister were young, and she cried for weeks, it was just a phase we went through, but it was really upseting for her.

Yes, and that is part of being a parent. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't try and be a parent.

There was a tragic story of a family who took a child into foster care. They took good care of him, gave him all the love, care and attention that their natural children had. But several months into the care scheme, when his adoption papers had been submitted, it was found that he was raping and molesting both their youngest daughter and son, telling each of them that if they said anything, he'd turn on the other. He had had a horrible time in other foster homes, being raped by a previous care taker. The heart ache caused by the tragedy broke up the family. He was placed back in a foster home, and stayed there till his 18th birthday, when he was shoved out on the street, the state not caring anymore. Adopting an older child holds fears for couples that something similar to this scenario might happen with them, regardless of how unlikely it is.

This scenario could happen with an adopted infant or a child born to the couple.

What if you find out, in a few years from now, that you can't have children? I hope you never go through the pain of not being able to have your own children, but somewhere in there, the choice to adopt will be mentioned, and I can almost guarantee you that your first choice will be an infant.

I actually plan to have a child of my own - but I also plan to adopt - and I don't plan to hold out for an infant. If I cannot have a child of my own, then I will adopt more than one - and while I would love to raise a child grow up from the beginning on, I will not make "infant" a requirement in any child I adopt.

Isn't the desire to keep me from harming other human beings an expression of a moral value? It is wrong, or unacceptable, to endanger or harm other human beings unnecessarily. <--- someone's morality is being legislated here.

Not really. It is the very purpose of a government to protect its citizens. It cannot protect them if it gives them the right to go around killing each other, now can it?

It seems that "morality" is being defined as "religion." I have always understood "morality" to be nothing more than that which helps me decide what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior (for instance, it is not acceptable to needlessly endanger or harm another human being...) My moral framework can be defined by or based on a religion, but not necessarily so.

Much of morality is religion, although not all of it is. My fiance is an atheist, but still a very moral person. However, if something cannot be shown to objectively harm another human being - then it is not something that should be legislated, as various people will have differing viewpoints on the subject, and none of them can be "proven", as it were.

I can prove that hitting a person with my car will harm them - objectively. I cannot prove that me going out and drinking myself into oblivion harms anyone else. THus, I am legally able to go out and drink whatever I want every night. Personally, I think drinking to excess is immoral.

This may have been mention already; I didn't feel like reading through 20 pages of replies:
Abortion is legal in Canada, and we haven't been struck down by God yet.

god is merciful

living in canada is punishment enough




JUST KIDDING!

This may have been mention already; I didn't feel like reading through 20 pages of replies:
Abortion is legal in Canada, and we haven't been struck down by God yet.
Ya i did but nobody seemed to notice, I also mentioned that DNA does not equal human because after a human dies they still have DNA matching that of their living self, therefore DNA has nothing to do with living or not.

In answer to the first question, I think most Christians reach the conclusion they do about abortion based on personal ethical conviction (in the same way Finney and Beecher reached their convictions about slavery).

The questions, "Is abortion ethically wrong?" and "Is stem-cell research ethically wrong?" are not ultimately religious questions. If they were, it would be impossible to be non-religious and still come down on both sides of these issues (I've met some pro-life atheists). Regardless of which side you come down on this issue, you have to admit it's a thoroughly secular question. Complicated with religion perhaps, but secular in essentials. To believe otherwise undermines the very concept of secular ethics.

No, you'll offer the other side of the argument, please join in...

I guess I already did, but here goes: I am for abortion, so if I get pregnant and I don't want a child, I'll have an abortion. Hands down!

don't be an asshole, i know the constitution and what it says

Careful, you're breaking forum rules. I'm quite certain you can debate without flaming. Do it.

Yes, but it also gives room for the federal and state governments to legislate. thinking other wise would never allow our government to operate in the way it does. our government would be frozen in it's ability.

For instance, do i retain the right to not pay taxes for programms i disagree with? it's not in the constitution, BUT THE 9TH AMMENDMANT SAYS...

No, that's not how our government works. the 9th ammendmant protects us from being denied rights not legislated, this does not limit congresses ability to make new laws limiting unsaid rights. the tenth ammednmant extends this ability to the states, and states that the states cannot take away rights without legislating.

So now you're changing it. The 9th amendment prevents us from being denied rights that were considered understood at the time of the writing of the constitution. They knew they couldn't enumerate every right so they said, you can't deny certain rights to your population simply because we didn't make a list of all of them. It has balls to do with legislation. Clearly, you don't understand this.

What makes you think that the ninth and tenth have anything to do with being able to take away rights with legislation. If they can be legislated against, they aren't rights at all (except in the case of compelling public interest). Nearly every case in front of the Supreme Court was an issue where legislation violated rights. What the hell purpose could the ninth amendment have if it only protects 'rights' until legislation is made?

If you want to prove your interpretation has any validity at all why don't you find me a case where the ninth amendment was interpreted to mean it protects only the rights that haven't been legislated against. I can already name you a case that supports my argument, it's called Roe v. Wade. Here's another Doe v. Bolton. Check them out. Support your argument.

I just thought of something else, lets look into the most probable outcome for this (as im going to call them) "forced-born child" or a child that was going to bee aborted but wasnt.The parents probably wont treat the child as a normal child should be, therefore making the child abusive and causing them to be like the murderous children who go on homocides.Essentialy yor paying for a horrible abused life with those of innocents who happened to be in the vicinity of this defective child.

I have the potential to become an elderly person. Can I file for social security right now?


Actually, I would prefer that your paycheck not be partially terminated by the government in the first place, so it can live up to its full potential. :)


Not really. It is the very purpose of a government to protect its citizens. It cannot protect them if it gives them the right to go around killing each other, now can it?


Of course not. The moral value at the basis of government, that it is wrong to kill or otherwise harm others unnecessarily, would and should prevent such behavior.


However, if something cannot be shown to objectively harm another human being - then it is not something that should be legislated, as various people will have differing viewpoints on the subject, and none of them can be "proven", as it were. I can prove that hitting a person with my car will harm them - objectively.


So you've proven that a particular moral value, hitting people with cars for no reason is wrong, is objectively true. It now seems that "morality" is being equated with "subjective." Again, this is not necessarily the case. Given our ability to reason, objective morality can be sought and even found.

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?
:rolleyes: well what do you know! It doesnt mention cloning either! WOW

OF COURSE abortion is a sin and the Bible supports that
THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
and does not christ speak of the unborn when he says "Whatever you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me"

I swear I get tired of explaining this crap.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.


The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.


''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'' 7 While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment? 8

If you read the express purpose of the ninth amendment was to protect non-enumerated rights from legislation by the federal goverment. The fourteenth amendment then extended that protection to the states just as it did with the freedom of religion, the press and speech.

Seems like the ninth amendment was written to thwart the arguments like yours as they predicted accurately that some would claim that non-enumerated rights are not secured by the US Constitution. Minus the ninth amendment, you are correct. With it, however, you have no standing.

hey im from dallas too

... DNA does not equal human because after a human dies they still have DNA matching that of their living self, therefore DNA has nothing to do with living or not.

Whether or not a fetus is living is not what is contested, because its status as a living entity is an objective fact. It could not develop, grow, and become a born child and eventual adult if it were not living. What is contested is whether or not a fetus is considered as an entity seperate from its mother. Because the complete DNA of the fetus differs from that of its mother, it is a seperate entity, and not simply a "part" of the mother's body to be removed as the mother pleases.

Actually, I would prefer that your paycheck not be partially terminated by the government in the first place, so it can live up to its full potential. :)

In other words, you are going to avoid the question because you know it completely demolishes your point.

So you've proven that a particular moral value, hitting people with cars for no reason is wrong, is objectively true. It now seems that "morality" is being equated with "subjective." Again, this is not necessarily the case. Given our ability to reason, objective morality can be sought and even found.

I haven't proven that anything at all is objectively true - something that is darn near impossible to do.

I have stated that the purpose of government is to protect its people. Thus, it must do so - and anything that can be objectively shown to harm one of its people can be legislated against.

So now you're changing it. The 9th amendment prevents us from being denied rights that were considered understood at the time of the writing of the constitution. They knew they couldn't enumerate every right so they said, you can't deny certain rights to your population simply because we didn't make a list of all of them. It has balls to do with legislation. Clearly, you don't understand this.

What makes you think that the ninth and tenth have anything to do with being able to take away rights with legislation. If they can be legislated against, they aren't rights at all (except in the case of compelling public interest). Nearly every case in front of the Supreme Court was an issue where legislation violated rights. What the hell purpose could the ninth amendment have if it only protects 'rights' until legislation is made?

If you want to prove your interpretation has any validity at all why don't you find me a case where the ninth amendment was interpreted to mean it protects only the rights that haven't been legislated against. I can already name you a case that supports my argument, it's called Roe v. Wade. Here's another Doe v. Bolton. Check them out. Support your argument.

ok so i do have the right to not pay taxes for programs i don't like?

I'm just wondering about the population here:

- Has anybody here had an abortion?
- Does anybody work with anything to do with abortion or at-risk mothers?

abortion being legal, its up to YOU to decide whether or not its for you. if you think its immoral killing, then dont do it. let those who find it to be a moral decision do as they think is right.

Since when do we trust people to make moral decisions? If we should just trust everyone to make moral decisions, why do we have any laws?

A common misconception is that morals=ethics. A person's morals are his or her own personal code of behavior, determined by his or her own life experiences and teachings. Ethics are what society deems acceptable or unacceptable. The government's responsibility is to answer ethical questions and act thereupon, not moral ones.

That being said, if we went by your argument's thesis, then we should have no laws and rely on people's own moral fabrics to determine their actions in society. Though I am definitely a fan of civil rights and liberty, I think basic laws are definitely important to society, and though people can still hold morals, their ethical actions should be somewhat contained to reasonable status in the parameters of the law. The government can make laws to regulate people's actions.

Whether or not a fetus is living is not what is contested, because its status as a living entity is an objective fact. It could not develop, grow, and become a born child and eventual adult if it were not living. What is contested is whether or not a fetus is considered as an entity seperate from its mother. Because the complete DNA of the fetus differs from that of its mother, it is a seperate entity, and not simply a "part" of the mother's body to be removed as the mother pleases.

It is not. I love when people claim things with no support. It does not meet the biological requirements for life throughout a portion of the fetus stage. Your definition of fact is specious. The cells are living. It is not a living entity. A heart is not a living entity. My hand is not a living entity.

I swear I get tired of explaining this crap.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/



If you read the express purpose of the ninth amendment was to protect non-enumerated rights from legislation by the federal goverment. The fourteenth amendment then extended that protection to the states just as it did with the freedom of religion, the press and speech.

If you think that a SINGLE ONE among the founders would have supported homosexual marriage, you need to go back on your medication.

You people dont seem to realize that MARRIAGE IN THE STATE'S EYES IS AN ECONOMIC UNION. The state doesnt care if you think it's ethical or not--that is the function of a religious marriage. Therefore one wonders why the state gives economic benefits to unions of one man and one woman. BECAUSE IT IS THOSE UNIONS WHICH ENSURE THE STABLE FUTURE OF THE STATE. They are the only marriages which produce offspring and then raise them in a stable environment.

I guess I already did, but here goes: I am for abortion, so if I get pregnant and I don't want a child, I'll have an abortion. Hands down!
and why would anyone WANT a country where women were forced to have babies they dont want? it sucked back when women ended up with a dozen children when all they wanted was 2 or 3.

I'm just wondering about the population here:

- Has anybody here had an abortion?
- Does anybody work with anything to do with abortion or at-risk mothers?
I do prolife work from time to time--sidewalk counciling and political lobying.

ok so i do have the right to not pay taxes for programs i don't like?

I take it you don't care to actually educate yourself. I see. The ninth amendment doesn't say that everything is a person right, only that some things are a personal right that are not mentioned specifically. There are a number of rights that have been listed under this provision. Your ridiculous argument that it's for the legislative branch to interpret ignores the fact that a branch of the government was created for the purpose.

and why would anyone WANT a country where women were forced to have babies they dont want? it sucked back when women ended up with a dozen children when all they wanted was 2 or 3.
.....So if people inconvinience you you should kill them...

I
So you prove my point. It isn't about the child, but about what the parents want. They want to be able to pretend that they actually had a child (a really bad idea by the way - it almost always ends badly) and they want a child that might not be any problem.

Not so much to 'pretend' the child is their own, but to hide the adoption from gossiping neighbours. I certainly wouldn't want people thinking 'poor girl, can't even have her own family, had to turn to adoption to have a kid', and we all know someone who would think/say that.

Once again, it obviously isn't about the child. Not to mention that even an infant adoption is largely at the discretion of the state. Even parents paired up with a prospective mother are screened quite a bit.

Not as much as a couple being solely screened by the state for a child in teh custody of the state. Usually couples are screened for suitability for adoption by the adoption agency when adopting an infant, and with an open adoption, by the birthing parents. Personally, I'd prefer to have an open adoption, regadless of which way around it was.


Yes, and that is part of being a parent. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't try and be a parent.

Sometimes nature doesn't think logically, just does whatever is expected of it. You can't force your body, using willpower alone, not to procreate. Even women on contraceptives get pregnant occassionally, although not a huge percentage, and it's usually because of forgetting to take the pill, a split condom, improper fitting diaphragm, etc, etc, etc. The only 100% fool proof way of not getting pregnant is surgery, a little drastic for younger people...


This scenario could happen with an adopted infant or a child born to the couple.

Not so much when you know that child's history. If you know that the child was brought up in a stable, loving environment, he/she's less likely to develop antisocial behaviour. And if the child you adopt is an infant, or at least under the age of 3-4, then you know it's history and are more in control of the situation.


I actually plan to have a child of my own - but I also plan to adopt - and I don't plan to hold out for an infant. If I cannot have a child of my own, then I will adopt more than one - and while I would love to raise a child grow up from the beginning on, I will not make "infant" a requirement in any child I adopt.

And I admire you for giving a child a second chance. But if it's your only chance to have a child, people want to go through all stages of a child's life with it, to make it all feel more like a family unit for everyone. Make sure you have a natural child first, then the adoption agency will know your situation. If there were issues with a child interacting badly with foster parents natural children, it could be an issue regarding taking your chosen child in.


Much of morality is religion, although not all of it is. My fiance is an atheist, but still a very moral person. However, if something cannot be shown to objectively harm another human being - then it is not something that should be legislated, as various people will have differing viewpoints on the subject, and none of them can be "proven", as it were.

I can prove that hitting a person with my car will harm them - objectively. I cannot prove that me going out and drinking myself into oblivion harms anyone else. THus, I am legally able to go out and drink whatever I want every night. Personally, I think drinking to excess is immoral.
Regarding abortion, there have been reports of women who have had trouble conceiving after an abortion they had had several years previous. Did you ever see what goes on when they do a D&C? It's pretty horrible, involves something that looks vaguely like a crochet hook which they shove up there and tear the lining away from the walls of your uterus (this is not to scare you, they do it after a miscarriage and if you haven't passed all of the placenta after birth too). This scars the tissue, quite badly, causing the scar tissue to stick together as it heals, leaving smaller pockets inside instead of the single uterine cavity. Abortions can have devastating effects on some womens fertility later in life. OK, it doesn't happen to everyone, but if your in that small percentage of people who are affected, it's the whole 100% for you.

If you think that a SINGLE ONE among the founders would have supported homosexual marriage, you need to go back on your medication.

You people dont seem to realize that MARRIAGE IN THE STATE'S EYES IS AN ECONOMIC UNION. The state doesnt care if you think it's ethical or not--that is the function of a religious marriage. Therefore one wonders why the state gives economic benefits to unions of one man and one woman. BECAUSE IT IS THOSE UNIONS WHICH ENSURE THE STABLE FUTURE OF THE STATE. They are the only marriages which produce offspring and then raise them in a stable environment.

Pardon? How did you get on the issue of gay marriage? Also, it should be noted that their opinion of certain things does not matter. They didn't object to slavery, but we definitely don't worry about their opinion on that matter. They didn't believe that women could own property or that they were citizens, but we don't listen to them there either. They are many, many issues on which they didn't agree, but there have been amendments since that make those issues mute. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal treatment of women and men, of minorities and whites, of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and heterosexuals. That amendment didn't exist at the time of the founders but it does now. They certainly did protect the right to marry and expect it to fall under the ninth amendment, however. It's the fourteenth, though, that extended that right to everyone equally. It's the fourteenth that says that since marriage is an individual right that we cannot limit what race I can marry or what race anyone can marry.

Since we're on the subject would care to list for me the benefits of marriage that require children? Can you list for me the benefits for children that require their parents to be married? The government does not grant marriages on the basis of protecting children. It's a contract that is issued to protect the rights of both parties involved and the rights of the familial unit. A gay couple is equally capable of needing that protection as is their familial unit.

The original question was, if the bible doesnt state that abortion is wrong is it right, we have kinda strayed from that, but my real point is that, pertaining to this question, if god doesnt like us performing abortions why doesnt he smite us? or just destroy all the abortion clinics with his wrath? The answer is simple, he doesnt care!

south dakota should have no right to stopping abortion... It should be the woman's right to decide, not a man's decision... My god (im not christian), we all know that South Dakota probably does have an almost all men governent state legislature... And, being not christian, I do not believe in the Bible..., and i will say, views can change over hundreeds of years, and this one should change now...



"Killing a mockingbird should not always be a sin""

The original question was, if the bible doesnt state that abortion is wrong is it right, we have kinda strayed from that, but my real point is that, pertaining to this question, if god doesnt like us performing abortions why doesnt he smite us? or just destroy all the abortion clinics with his wrath? The answer is simple, he doesnt care!

Or he never interacts with us, but that's another arguement...

I take it you don't care to actually educate yourself. I see. The ninth amendment doesn't say that everything is a person right, only that some things are a personal right that are not mentioned specifically. There are a number of rights that have been listed under this provision. Your ridiculous argument that it's for the legislative branch to interpret ignores the fact that a branch of the government was created for the purpose.

oh ok so courts decide what rights under the 9th ammendmant are.

well if the 9th ammendmant doesn't say anything about legislation deciding, why did you jump to the conclusion that the courts could decide?

Maybe they just took too much LSD.

And if:



If slavery was a punishment by God, then God would have made the slavers sin, which would contradict with the whole free will thingie.

Does God make other people sin?

Yep (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=4&verse=21&version=31&context=verse)

The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

This is the same shit I've been trying to tell pro-lifers for years.

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.

Agreed. Anymore then this and abortions would become abused. I still concider myself pro-life even with this stand because to take the babies life to save the mother is still proserving life. only stratigically so that the couple can attempt to have a child later when the circumstances are not as harsh.

As for miscarages, How can someone be punished for this? honestly now, its not " at least it usually is not" in the mothers interest to have one, its the situation where shit happens. No one is to blame.

Since when do we trust people to make moral decisions? If we should just trust everyone to make moral decisions, why do we have any laws?

A common misconception is that morals=ethics. A person's morals are his or her own personal code of behavior, determined by his or her own life experiences and teachings. Ethics are what society deems acceptable or unacceptable. The government's responsibility is to answer ethical questions and act thereupon, not moral ones.

That being said, if we went by your argument's thesis, then we should have no laws and rely on people's own moral fabrics to determine their actions in society. Though I am definitely a fan of civil rights and liberty, I think basic laws are definitely important to society, and though people can still hold morals, their ethical actions should be somewhat contained to reasonable status in the parameters of the law. The government can make laws to regulate people's actions.

gee i rely on people to make moral decisions every day. most especially about how to live their own lives but also to not do things that would hurt me when there is no way the law could be expected to protect me

we DO have laws. they dont cover every aspect of life now do they? they dont outlaw every possible way there is to kill another "person". self defense, justifiable homicide, assisted suicide, removal of extreme medical care (right to die), accidents, im sure i can think of more if i try. if you find any of these immoral/unethical (aside from accidents) then DONT DO THEM.

abortion is legal for good moral, ethical and legal reasons. there is no compelling reason for women to be forced to bear children they dont want. no medical reason to disallow early abortions (later abortions are rightly regulated by the state). if you dont find abortion to be right, DONT GET ONE.

we dont need the state to make intimate decisions about our lifes.

Is a twin one person or two?


A pair of twins consists of two different people. But I don't see how this changes what I said regarding the individuality of the fetus vis-a-vis its mother, the two not being twins.


The problem is that the embryo and early fetus do not qualify as alive by the definition for life in biology.


A problem further complicated by the fact that the individual person which the fetus will become absolutely does qualify as alive by the definition for life in biology.


Again, this means that we might as well allow people to have sex with 5-year-olds because they have the potential to become adults and consent.


False analogy. Raping a 5-year-old is not equivilent to allowing a fetus to continue to grow and develop normally. In the first case, the child is being sexually abused. In the second case, the fetus is allowed to continue doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

The 5-year-old in the above scenario is a victim of rape, because it cannot express consent or defend its safety or continued existance in any meaningful way. Thus it is necessary for the family/community/state to step in and assert its rights. Similarly, a fetus cannot express consent or defend its safety or continued existance in any meaningful way. Yet abortion should continue to be a permissible choice. Why should the 5-year-old be defended, but the fetus not?

oh ok so courts decide what rights under the 9th ammendmant are.

well if the 9th ammendmant doesn't say anything about legislation deciding, why did you jump to the conclusion that the courts could decide?

I didn't jump to the conclusions. The ninth amendment was written expressly to protect people from legislation deciding as I showed you in the link where it offers information about the purpose of the founders and the intent of the amendment. The courts have the job of interpreting the document for application, the test of constitutionality. I'll help you.

Article III - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In other words, Article III says that the courts are to settle issues of Constitutionality. This has been held to be true since the first challenge in 1803. For someone who claims they are very knowledgeable on the US Constitution, you sure seem to be nearly completely unaware of its text.

Or he never interacts with us, but that's another arguement...


...Also, anyone with even somewhat educated about being a Christian knows that God does not come down and smite us because he gave us free will, and that from out decisions we will be judged upon.

.....So if people inconvinience you you should kill them...
....embryos arent people....

Or he never interacts with us, but that's another arguement...
If he never interacts with us then how did Jesus come along? If your gonna follow with that case you take apart a large portion of what Christrianity is based on.
And he doesnt need to come down, just drop a little plague down or something to that effect.

A pair of twins consists of two different people. But I don't see how this changes what I said regarding the individuality of the fetus vis-a-vis its mother, the two not being twins.

Because the definition either works or it doesn't. You offer more and more proof that your line is arbitrary by the fact that you have to offer more and more to it to make it work.

A problem further complicated by the fact that the individual person which the fetus will become absolutely does qualify as alive by the definition for life in biology.

It does. Surely you can show how it meets all of the requirements. I'll wait. I generally find this part of the process amusing.

False analogy. Raping a 5-year-old is not equivilent to allowing a fetus to continue to grow and develop normally. In the first case, the child is being sexually abused. In the second case, the fetus is allowed to continue doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

You don't get it. It's evidence that we must legally treat things as they are not as they have the potential to be. You fail to see the point, but again, it doesn't make it not exist. Why should a fetus being given rights based on it's potential to become an older version of itself but not other children?

The 5-year-old in the above scenario is a victim of rape, because it cannot express consent or defend its safety or continued existance in any meaningful way. Thus it is necessary for the family/community/state to step in and assert its rights. Similarly, a fetus cannot express consent or defend its safety or continued existance in any meaningful way. Yet abortion should continue to be a permissible choice. Why should the 5-year-old be defended, but the fetus not?
No, the fetus has no rights because it does not meet the biological requirements for life. At conception it cannot react as an entity for example.

I didn't jump to the conclusions. The ninth amendment was written expressly to protect people from legislation deciding as I showed you in the link where it offers information about the purpose of the founders and the intent of the amendment. The courts have the job of interpreting the document for application, the test of constitutionality. I'll help you.

Article III - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In other words, Article III says that the courts are to settle issues of Constitutionality. This has been held to be true since the first challenge in 1803. For someone who claims they are very knowledgeable on the US Constitution, you sure seem to be nearly completely unaware of its text.

ok then what's the purpose of the legislative branch if the courts decide all rights

Geez... Human beings are the only ones that can be sinners, since only sentient beings can sin.

definition (http://www.answers.com/sentient&r=67)
http://www.answers.com/sentient&r=67

Cats have emotions. I've seen birds open cage doors. Monkeys use sticks to dig up bugs to eat. Dolphins have self recognition (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5937).

Are you sure us ape-decendants are the only sentient ones around?

Do these frequent discussions about abortion really do anything but waste our time?

how is a ferti.lized eggt NOT human?

What else is it... a tree? A rock? A pig?

I cannot believe how anti-lifers (hehe) try to make abortion easier to swallow by rationalizing that a human embryo is not human.

So, an embryo, under good conditions, developes into a human. (I'm at work, and can't do large amounts of web research - but as I recall, 1/3 of pregnancies self-terminate in the first month. So 'good' conditions is a must!)

But under proper conditions, my sperm and the egg in that woman across the street will become a human as well. Yet I hear of few arguments that not banging her being a sin - despite the potential human life that will not occur.

What is it? A proto-human. A potential human. The (high) possibility of a sentient being. But it hasn't quite made it there yet.

Currently people are arguing over translations and interpretations of the Bible. I'd just wait until it all blows over if I were you, these threads never go anywhere.

Man, it's always annoying when that happens :/. This is just an argument anyway, maybe i'll wait too....

...a human cell. Why would anyone want to classify something growing in the womb of a woman as unhuman?


What's an uterine tumor? Something growing in a woman's womb and all... ;)

In other words, you are going to avoid the question because you know it completely demolishes your point.


I have not avoided the question. I answered that I would prefer that the government not remove social security payments from individuals in the first place, because I prefer that their potential (income) not be removed from them. This way, the individual can prepare now for the eventuality of becoming elderly, instead of having his or her potential disappear into a broken bureaucracy.

Similarily, I prefer that the unborn not be subject to abortion, beccause I prefer that their potential not be removed from them. This way, the fetus can prepare (grow and develop) for the eventuality of becoming an individual person, instead of having this new individual snuffed out at an earlier stage.


I have stated that the purpose of government is to protect its people. Thus, it must do so - and anything that can be objectively shown to harm one of its people can be legislated against.

And, again, this is a moral value which you wish to see enforced over all other individuals, thereby legislating your morality.

ok then what's the purpose of the legislative branch if the courts decide all rights

Seriously. Why don't you read the US Constitution and we'll start there? I'm not teaching a class.

First, where did I say the decides all rights. There is a quote function. They simply interpret the Constitution and the ninth amendment said that some rights were so understood at the time that they were not enumerated. The right to privacy was one such right and in conjuction with the fourteenth amendment, it infers the right for a woman to decide what medical procedures she undergoes without interference from the state.

Second, there are some rights that were not assumed under the ninth amendment and this is why there have been amendments to the Constitution. Examples are that they clearly didn't intend for equality of the sexes or the races so the fourteenth amendment was required. They certainly didn't intend the right to vote for either women or minorities so those amendments were required. They did intend the right to marry to be understood. They did intend the right to privacy to be understood. They did intend the right to vote to be understood.

Now, if you are still unclear about the powers of the legislative branch try findlaw.com they include footnotes that will explain to you the branches of government and their function as is generally done in grade school (for me it was eighth and ninth grade). Or we can assume you do know the function of the branches and you just wish for them to be different so you can support your, to be quite frank, unsupportable point.

I notice I haven't seen a single actual quote of the constitution from you. For someone who claims to have the constitution on his side, it's interesting that you can't find the language to support your points. I notice that you haven't cited a single case, again, for someone making your claims, it's interesting that you can't find any support. Perhaps because there is none, no?

If he never interacts with us then how did Jesus come along? If your gonna follow with that case you take apart a large portion of what Christrianity is based on.
And he doesnt need to come down, just drop a little plague down or something to that effect.
hmmmm i think a 2000 year wait can excuse me from asking "what has he done for me lately?"

...

What gives one person the right to claim that we are equal? That right is the fact that every single person on this planet has human dignity. No person has more or less dignity then the next person. ....

I assure you, when I am drunk and running down the street naked, I have far less dignity than most people on this planet.

I have not avoided the question. I answered that I would prefer that the government not remove social security payments from individuals in the first place, because I prefer that their potential (income) not be removed from them. This way, the individual can prepare now for the eventuality of becoming elderly, instead of having his or her potential disappear into a broken bureaucracy.

Similarily, I prefer that the unborn not be subject to abortion, beccause I prefer that their potential not be removed from them. This way, the fetus can prepare (grow and develop) for the eventuality of becoming an individual person, instead of having this new individual snuffed out at an earlier stage.


And when you can show there is any other legal entity to be considered here, then you'll have an excellent point. In the case of taxes, there is a compelling public interested in the government being financially supported. There is no compelling public interest in enslaving women. You can't even seem to show that the fetus is a life. Or at least you can't be arsed to try.

Canada City']
So what's the deal? Is it another situation like being against Gay Marriage where they twist the words of the bible yet again to further their own agenda?

I'm typically too busy/lazy to post here and therefore I shall not adress the abortion issue. However gay intercourse is speciffically and repetedly condemmed in the bible (ergo: Gay marriage is not cool with God either)(1 Cor. 6). Once again I'm too lazy to get exact verses and type them out with the witty points that I would feel obligated to couple with them. go to biblegateway.com and do a word search for homosexual or use e-sword, it's better. bye.

and since the argument is Sinning, thus a religious nature, it can be countered with the fact that only Man ate from the tree of knowledge even after being told not to.

notice that not even the serpent took a bite from it's fruit.

So... Women are perfect!

Screw the bible, I'm going to read playboy... ;)

I'm typically too busy/lazy to post here and therefore I shall not adress the abortion issue. However gay intercourse is speciffically and repetedly condemmed in the bible (ergo: Gay marriage is not cool with God either)(1 Cor. 6). Once again I'm too lazy to get exact verses and type them out with the witty points that I would feel obligated to couple with them. go to biblegateway.com and do a word search for homosexual or use e-sword, it's better. bye.

Amusing and wrong, but I won't hijack the thread to prove it to you. Feel free to start your own thread and I'll be happy to show that no such thing is ever mentioned in the Bible.

Why should a fetus being given rights based on it's potential to become an older version of itself but not other children?


Potential is only one factor involved. A fetus should be protected because it will eventually become a fully developed and independent human being. Both a fetus and a 5-year-old should be protected because they are otherwise incapable of doing so for themselves, to any meaningful degree.

(Edit: In fact, preventing and punishing rape is protecting the potential of the 5-year-old, as such violent acts can result in injury, physical or mental, that could damage (or, if serious enough, prevent) growth into adulthood)

Potential is only one factor involved. A fetus should be protected because it will eventually become a fully developed and independent human being. Both a fetus and a 5-year-old should be protected because they are otherwise incapable of do so for themselves, to any meaningful degree.

Except the five-year-old is a human being and a fetus is not. You keep ignoring requests to show otherwise. Potential does not make something a human being. It must meet the requirements for life. You've repeatedly claimed that it does but you continue to argue about things that have nothing to do with those requirements. Genetic uniqueness for example is not a requirement.

I agree that these threads are a waste of time because none of the people in this forum can pass a law all on their own. However, these same basic things are said by the people who CAN pass laws, and the lobbyists and the special interest groups that have the ear of the government because they have a lot of money.

My own take: It's all pretty terrifying. I thought the Church and the State were separated a while ago!

Except the five-year-old is a human being and a fetus is not.


So what? Should I be allowed to harm, kill, or damage whatever I want, so long as it is not human?

well are you asking, is abortion a sin...in the eyes of the church? or the bible? or is abortion a sin generally? cause i just think it depends on the circumstances of the abortion.
Plus i don't think the church have a right to say if abortion is right or wrong because it doesn't say anything in the bible, so who are they to judge? (this also includes homosexuality and the likes).
If the mother or child cannot have a good life then i think abortion can be acceptable...in some cases. But theres also adoption, unless lives are at risk. And rape...depends how the mother feels, but i think women shouldn't let it get in the way...unless there are other problems. and you?

Seeing how this is the second time it's popped up...

I don't feel like looking up the exact verse, but I think it's in Leviticus where God says, "And if a man is to lay with another man as he would a woman, they shall be deemed unclean, for that is distasteful to me", or somesuch. But (male) homosexuality (and bestiality) are explicitly states as being no-nos by the various writers and editors of the bible.

There is no compelling public interest in enslaving women.


"Enslaving" is a bit hyperbolic, is it not?

During biblical times, abortion, although it existed, was a sort of "underground" practice. It was usually done in extreme secrecy. However, in order to show that the Bible is against abortion, let's look at its many passages that promote the sanctity of life, primarily in the New Testament.

Also, a fetus (or foetus) is a grouping of cells, correct?

And don't scientists consider bacteria, single-celled organisms life? And since a fetus requires food, air, and water, which it receives from the mother, to grow and develop, like all life does, a symbol that it has the same needs as a human that is ex utero? It moves(kicking, for example). It has nerve, blood, bone, and other cells that develop over time, so isn't it logical to say it is actual life, and must be respected as such?

So what? Should I be allowed to harm, kill, or damage whatever I want, so long as it is not human?
if its stuck inside your body, YES!

However, I feel it is your responsibility to remember that sex IS THE METHOD OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION, not a means of pleasure.

The clitoris is all about pleasure, and has no bearing on child bearing.

We know God's will is not to allow things to die. We already force people not to kill by having muder laws.

Unless they happen to be the first born child of every egyptian who failed to put a mark on their door, in which God's Angels are free to kill people...

The bible DOES, however, state quite clearly and unequivocally, DO NOT KILL. Abortion is killing the foetus. QED.

Wow. All those blood sacrifices God calls for...

A unjust killing of a person is banned. But there's plenty of times God calles for killing of a person.

Then there's the whole argument, is an embryo closer to a person or a wad of spunk...

So what? Should I be allowed to harm, kill, or damage whatever I want, so long as it is not human?
Are you seriously arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to harm, damage, or kill anything? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Also, a fetus (or foetus) is a grouping of cells, correct?

And don't scientists consider bacteria, single-celled organisms life? And since a fetus requires food, air, and water, which it receives from the mother, to grow and develop, like all life does, a symbol that it has the same needs as a human that is ex utero? It moves(kicking, for example). It has nerve, blood, bone, and other cells that develop over time, so isn't it logical to say it is actual life, and must be respected as such?
While some people will argue with the definition of "life" here, I'll accept your definition for the sake of argument.
Sure, I'll treat a fetus as life.
Let's see, what do I do to life?
...Hmm, well, I destroy it in very large quantities, sometimetimes for my own survival, and sometimes just for pleasure. I mean, I eat, don't I? And what I eat is life, right? And some of what I eat is not necessary for me to eat. I wipe out infections(my immune system is doing this constantly), I wipe out housepests. Sometime I might decide to go hunting or something.
All of these are ways in which I treat things that fall under your definition of life, and I'm fairly sure you do similar things too. Can a fetus, then, be treated in the same way as other life? Or is there some other condition which your opposition hinges on, rather than life?

Actually it follows very succinctly. You have sex, you get pregnant. What else happens when you have sex? what else is the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION of having sex?

God willing, we both orgasm. That big 'ol emotional bang has nothing to do with getting pregnant; dogs and cats mate and reproduce without showing a great deal of pleasure in the act.

It's a bonding thing, kinda like kissing. What biological function is acheived with smooching, aside from eating each others cooties?

Psalm 139:
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

So God has a plan for each individual, even before they are formed in the womb.

Psalms say nothing of God's mind, they're a collection of prayers, poems, songs, etc praising God and whatnot.Ancient people's interpretations and whatnot. As such, they're God's words as much as all the posts in here!

The key here is not Biblical. What makes a human a human? Well, quite simply, it is its DNA. The DNA of a 1 day old embryo is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE 50 YEARS LATER! How can a person claim to be civilized and yet advocate the right to MURDER an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? Some may bring up the death penalty, well, that is used on murderers and rapists, convicted in a court of law. Forget the Bible for a minute. Science proves that from the moment of conception, it is a human life. The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention anything anywhere about a so-called "right to privacy". This is a perversion of the 4th Ammendment, made by an activist court with a Liberal agenda. This is arguably the most contreversial issue in America, it is tearing us apart in more ways than you know. The fact that every time any legislation is introduced to restrict abortion, Liberals go nuts saying that this will deal a huge blow to our civil rights just proves that they are in the minority. Here's a novel idea: lets have a nationwide referendum on the issue. Oh, wait, Liberals know they will lose on this issue, so they fear it and tie it up in the courts every time. So much for being all for civil rights, huh. In all, we must all realize that it is not size, weight, or age of the unborn child, it is its DNA. You science worshiping Liberals out there need to listen to your own preaches when they tell you that from the instant of fertilization, it is a HUMAN! And I think we would all agree that murder is wrong, couldn't we?


Holey Moley.

If I cut my finger, some blood oozes out. I clean it with peroxide, which destroyed many blood cells. But each one of those blood cells carries my complete DNA.

OMG!!!! I COMMITTED MURDER!!!

No? Those single cells aren't human?

What if, clutz that I am, I cut of my finger and the cat eats it. That structure, that grouping of cells with a human's complete DNA, is now dead! But I didn't commit suicide.

I human is a little more than just DNA. It's could be called the expression thereof. How my hypothetical soul fits in there, I have no idea. But I sure hope my soul doesn't live in the finger I just cut off.

For all your talk of science, you really don't seem to understand much of it...

BTW, last I looked, us liberal wackos made up about 1/2 this country, same as you conservative wackos. Methinks part of what's tearing apart this country is an unwillingness to accept that many others have differing viewpoints, that we need to learn to deal with. That, or neither side has gathered enough clubs with with to properly wack the other side with.

If you believe that abortion is a sin then dont have one and let everyone else live their lives. If it's a sin they will go to hell and get their just reward correct? So now why do people have to force their beliefs onto other people who don't believe and embrace the same idea? Besides who are the parents going to love more? The planned kid or the "accident" that they don't want? My last point is even if abortions were out-lawed there would immediatly be an opening of a black market where conditions would almost definatly be worse and the mother's health would be at risk.

actually the bible speaks of the value of life mannny times throughout the whole thing which could be used to explain the reason for pro-lifers and certain things are pretty much implied so to say the bible is ok with slaughtering thousands of children is pretty ridiculous.........

And when the Jews prepeared to enter the promised lands, God ordered them to kill everyone.

"you must utterly destroy them... show no mercy"
NB no excemption for kids
(deut 7: 2-3)

And again:
"But as for the towns of the peoples that the Lord your God is giving you, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihiliate them"
NB an exception will be given: for fruit bearing trees. Kids are still SOL.
)deut 20:16-19)

The Bible is big, it's long, its point changes, it's been translated many times by people with different cultures and attitudes; you can find support for most anything in there! In between the above verses are orders to kill only men, and take women and children as playthings...

And when the Jews prepeared to enter the promised lands, God ordered them to kill everyone.

"you must utterly destroy them... show no mercy"
NB no excemption for kids
(deut 7: 2-3)

And again:
"But as for the towns of the peoples that the Lord your God is giving you, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihiliate them"
NB an exception will be given: for fruit bearing trees. Kids are still SOL.
)deut 20:16-19)

The Bible is big, it's long, its point changes, it's been translated many times by people with different cultures and attitudes; you can find support for most anything in there! In between the above verses are orders to kill only men, and take women and children as playthings...


Thats probably what makes it a powerfull book ... people can find suport for whatever their predujusteces are

Its like psychics that make general perdictions ... people create their own meaning rather then the origional source having any meaning of its own

*http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
go here and see a nearly 20 point lead by those who want stricter rules or abolition of abortion

Is that all you got?

LMFAO your link also shows the majority of those polled (by 50-60 points) want abortion abailable in some form!

I'm typically too busy/lazy to post here and therefore I shall not adress the abortion issue. However gay intercourse is speciffically and repetedly condemmed in the bible (ergo: Gay marriage is not cool with God either)(1 Cor. 6). Once again I'm too lazy to get exact verses and type them out with the witty points that I would feel obligated to couple with them. go to biblegateway.com and do a word search for homosexual or use e-sword, it's better. bye.Amusing and wrong, but I won't hijack the thread to prove it to you. Feel free to start your own thread and I'll be happy to show that no such thing is ever mentioned in the Bible.


here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13;&version=31;)
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'

Yep. The guy who translated the thranslation of the thranslation of the thranslation of ..... of what God might have said.

My personal take is that God's plan for humanity has evolved as human society has evolved. (You don't read about Jesus preashing about washing your hands or such!)

I'm just wondering about the population here:

- Has anybody here had an abortion?
- Does anybody work with anything to do with abortion or at-risk mothers?

I haven't personally had an abortion, and I'm not sure that I could do it myself. Personally I think that I would have severe guilt issues over it, but that's a personal choice. I'm fully pro-choice. Every woman should have a right to choose for themselves, it is not my business, nor anyone else's to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion.

I have however held the hands of two friends while they went through abortions, for two very different reasons - both of which I would consider to be good ones, and I will never look at them with any sort of judgement because they had abortions - it was right for them at the moment. Do they regret it now? One does a bit, but in the grand scheme she knows that for her it was the best decision at the time. The other doesn't regret it at all and is thankful everyday that she had the chance to have one legally (we're in Canada, no question about legality of it up here - it's done in hospitals and doesn't cost a dime).

I also used to work at a Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, and had to counsel women regularly on the possibility of abortion if the rape resulted in pregnancy - and counselled many women who did have abortions as a result of rapes. Without the option, I fear that a lot of them would have committed suicide before the end of the pregnancy. Or the children produced would have spent their entire lives in the foster care system - as most children who are not "perfect" (ie white) stay in the system for about 18 years.

Personally, I find it almost amusing (in a sad way) that the majority of people who advocate the pro-life stance are those who have never had to face such situations head on, and likely have the resources to deal with unwanted pregnancies. I strongly believe that these people need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they judge.

Holey Moley.

If I cut my finger, some blood oozes out. I clean it with peroxide, which destroyed many blood cells. But each one of those blood cells carries my complete DNA.

OMG!!!! I COMMITTED MURDER!!!

No? Those single cells aren't human?

Those are human cells. Not a human.

Those are human cells. Not a human.

So's a fertilized cell....

So's a fertilized cell....

A fertilised cell is an entire distinct human. You are just cells as well. Is it ok for me to kill you?

The diffrence between a few blood cells and a fertalised egg is that the fertialised egg is an entire individual human, the blood is just part of another human.

Personally, I find it almost amusing (in a sad way) that the majority of people who advocate the pro-life stance are those who have never had to face such situations head on, and likely have the resources to deal with unwanted pregnancies. I strongly believe that these people need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they judge.

So we have to walk in (illegal) drug users shoes to judge whether drug possession is wrong. Or we have to be a thief to discover that stealing is wrong. No, of course not. We dont decide things are wrong because we have been in those situations. We decide things are wrong on the basis of the morality behind them. An addicted illegal drug user may need to steal in order to finance their habit, but just because they need to steal, doesnt make the stealing any less wrong.

...then only sinners will have abortions?

Well, since we're all supposedly sinners, I guess that usually cloth-eared false conversion holds true.

I have no uterus. Therefore, I have no opinion.

However, I do have an opinion about religious moral tyrrany. Me no like.

A fertilised cell is an entire distinct human. You are just cells as well. Is it ok for me to kill you?


If I was in your body against your will
Yes

If I was in your body against your will
Yes

This comes into the "against your will" part. If a woman has consentual sex, then the fetus is there in favour of her will. The reason for this is when you have consentual sex, you accept at least a possibility of becoming pregnant. You can lower that posibility with contreception but you cannot eliminate it.

Normally I get the arguements now about car crashes etc. People saying that if a woman accepts the possibility of a child but cannot do anything about it, then I sholdnt be allowed to be saved about a car crash should I get into one. However the reason you can do something about a car crash and not about an impregnation is that to deal with the 'problem' of an impregnation requires you to kill the fetus. Whereas it is not needed to kill anyone to save them from a car crash.

So therfore a woman when she has consentual sex has to accept a posibility that a situation will come about, which she cannot do anything about without killing someone. She can do everything possible to lower that posibility but it still exists.

Its rather like this. If you are playing a game where you roll a dice and if it lands on a four a person will get a disease that will mean the only way to survive will be to recieve a total blood transfussion from someone else (thus killing them), you then think should you roll the dice at all.

Potential is only one factor involved. A fetus should be protected because it will eventually become a fully developed and independent human being. Both a fetus and a 5-year-old should be protected because they are otherwise incapable of doing so for themselves, to any meaningful degree.

(Edit: In fact, preventing and punishing rape is protecting the potential of the 5-year-old, as such violent acts can result in injury, physical or mental, that could damage (or, if serious enough, prevent) growth into adulthood)

They aren't just about potential damage. They are about present damage and violation of rights. Your 'potential' arguments just shows an arbitrary line that can be moved to wherever anyone wants. It has no reason to be placed at conception. I could just as easily outlaw abstinence, masturbation by men, and birth control on the same argument of 'potential'. We don't give rights based on potential.

Meanwhile, in the case of an abortion, it will NEVER ba a human being and thus no human being's rights needed to be protected.

This comes into the "against your will" part. If a woman has consentual sex, then the fetus is there in favour of her will. The reason for this is when you have consentual sex, you accept at least a possibility of becoming pregnant. You can lower that posibility with contreception but you cannot eliminate it.

Normally I get the arguements now about car crashes etc. People saying that if a woman accepts the possibility of a child but cannot do anything about it, then I sholdnt be allowed to be saved about a car crash should I get into one. However the reason you can do something about a car crash and not about an impregnation is that to deal with the 'problem' of an impregnation requires you to kill the fetus. Whereas it is not needed to kill anyone to save them from a car crash.

So therfore a woman when she has consentual sex has to accept a posibility that a situation will come about, which she cannot do anything about without killing someone. She can do everything possible to lower that posibility but it still exists.

Its rather like this. If you are playing a game where you roll a dice and if it lands on a four a person will get a disease that will mean the only way to survive will be to recieve a total blood transfussion from someone else (thus killing them), you then think should you roll the dice at all.

Your argument is wrong. You assume that we have no right to change our will. We do. And you can do nothing about it. I can invite you in my home and a moment later tell you to leave or that I will defend my home with violence if necessary, all within the bounds of the law. More importantly, she consented to sex, but she did consent to pregnancy. The sex was willful but particularly in the case of the use of birth control, it's quite clear the pregnancy was against the will of the participants.

This comes into the "against your will" part. If a woman has consentual sex, then the fetus is there in favour of her will. The reason for this is when you have consentual sex, you accept at least a possibility of becoming pregnant. You can lower that posibility with contreception but you cannot eliminate it.

Normally I get the arguements now about car crashes etc. People saying that if a woman accepts the possibility of a child but cannot do anything about it, then I sholdnt be allowed to be saved about a car crash should I get into one. However the reason you can do something about a car crash and not about an impregnation is that to deal with the 'problem' of an impregnation requires you to kill the fetus. Whereas it is not needed to kill anyone to save them from a car crash.

So therfore a woman when she has consentual sex has to accept a posibility that a situation will come about, which she cannot do anything about without killing someone. She can do everything possible to lower that posibility but it still exists.

Its rather like this. If you are playing a game where you roll a dice and if it lands on a four a person will get a disease that will mean the only way to survive will be to recieve a total blood transfussion from someone else (thus killing them), you then think should you roll the dice at all.

Yes, a woman has to accept the possibility of becoming pregnant, which of course does not mean, that she has to consent to it.

From the moment she knows about her pregnancy she has to take responsibility for it, which can lead to either having the child (and maybe putting it up for adoption) and to abort the fetus.

Since a fetus is not a sentient human being and therefore has no right to life (since we don't grant rights to "potential human beings" (and we don't even know if it really is a potential human being, since there could be a miscarriage in case she doesn't abort, so the best thing we can say about a fetus is that is a potential "potential human being")) , having an abortion is perfectly fine.

They aren't just about potential damage. They are about present damage and violation of rights. Your 'potential' arguments just shows an arbitrary line that can be moved to wherever anyone wants. It has no reason to be placed at conception. I could just as easily outlaw abstinence, masturbation by men, and birth control on the same argument of 'potential'. We don't give rights based on potential.

The conception line is far from arbitary

"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"

*"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."

*"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

*"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

*"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"


*In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins

So we have to walk in (illegal) drug users shoes to judge whether drug possession is wrong. Or we have to be a thief to discover that stealing is wrong. No, of course not. We dont decide things are wrong because we have been in those situations. We decide things are wrong on the basis of the morality behind them. An addicted illegal drug user may need to steal in order to finance their habit, but just because they need to steal, doesnt make the stealing any less wrong.


i think that is a bit of an over simplification. What i was trying to say was that I find it amusing that people who couldn't possibly understand the situation are the ones who do the most judging. I've been in contact with a lot of women who have been in a position to have abortions - and not because of rape, but because of bad choices and/or failed birth control, and many people would now condemn those women because they took responsibility and did what they needed to do to move on with their lives and make the best out of a bad situation.

It's very easy for people who have never been in the situation to sit back and judge and say "no, it's wrong, it's immoral, it's a sin, you can't do it". I just wonder how those people would feel if the tables were turned and they were in the shoes of the people dealing with the decision of having an abortion.

So many pro-lifers (and not all) make it out to be an easy choice, that women just decide that it's an easy fix. I've worked with a lot of women who've dealt with that decision, and I can guarantee, i've never met one who found it easy.

As for your illegal drug user analogy - which I find erroneous to say the least - If the drug user went for help with their addiction and cleaned up their life, people would applaud them for it and do what they could to help them out. If a woman gets an abortion, she is shunned by a portion of society, regardless of reason. It just all seems ridiculous to me.

But then again, the whole idea of abortion as a sin is based on the notion that there is more out there, a grander scheme, a divine power. Why should we make something illegal based upon a religious belief that may or may not be true anyway. I for one am not about to base my decisions on a book that was written hundreds of years ago by a bunch of men who may or may not have known what they were talking about. So maybe abortion should only be illegal for those who believe in a god??

This whole arguement really seems to be circular - nobody is going to be convinced.

Your argument is wrong. You assume that we have no right to change our will. We do. And you can do nothing about it. I can invite you in my home and a moment later tell you to leave or that I will defend my home with violence if necessary, all within the bounds of the law. More importantly, she consented to sex, but she did consent to pregnancy. The sex was willful but particularly in the case of the use of birth control, it's quite clear the pregnancy was against the will of the participants.

You do not have the right to change your will in regard to what you have already done. If you have created a life and no longer want it to live, you do not have the right to end it.

Although you may use birth control and it may be against their will to be pregnant, they clearly accepted it as an outcome as they had sex. If you role a dice you have to accept 1-6 as an outcome. You cannot just smash the dice if it produces a number you dont like.

Those are human cells. Not a human.

Yes, exactly like a blastocyst.

You do not have the right to change your will in regard to what you have already done. If you have created a life and no longer want it to live, you do not have the right to end it.

You haven't created life. Not yet. You're right. Once you've ACTUALLY created life you don't have the right to end it. Until then, however, terminate the abortions at will.

i just wanted to add that there seems to be an overwhelming idea out there that adoption is a good alternative to abortion. In speaking with the majority of people that I know who have been adopted, they would rather not have had to endure the childhoods that they have had. I actually had two people tell me that considering the lives that they have led, they would have rather that their biological mothers end the pregnancy. Sure there are many good cases of adoption, but there are also many bad ones, and many cases of children who never get adopted and spend their lives in the system - what a joy that must be. I'm not saying that adoption is bad, and I have every intention of adopting a child myself one day, what I am saying is that using adoption as the blanket alternative for eliminating abortion is a bit of a rose-coloured glasses attitude.

You haven't created life. Not yet. You're right. Once you've ACTUALLY created life you don't have the right to end it. Until then, however, terminate the abortions at will.

I've already provided a rather large body of scientific opinion that disagrees with you.

The conception line is far from arbitary







*

*

*

*


*In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins

Great. So we know what they believe. Care to show me their scientific evidence for their assertions? You can't. There is no evidence. That's why these claims are never support. It's like Dr. Bruce Carlson whose book makes this claim but is only used by pro-life Christian schools. He is of course an expert on Gerontology which makes him an expert on embryology somehow.... WOOT!

I find it amazing that some people cannot grasp that being a scientist does not make everything you say or believe scientific. I work in the field of science but I believe in God. My belief in God is not a scientific point of view. Nor is the belief in God held by any scientist.

A fertilised cell is an entire distinct human. You are just cells as well. Is it ok for me to kill you?

The diffrence between a few blood cells and a fertalised egg is that the fertialised egg is an entire individual human, the blood is just part of another human.

Not according to biology. Take a class.

You do not have the right to change your will in regard to what you have already done. If you have created a life and no longer want it to live, you do not have the right to end it.

Although you may use birth control and it may be against their will to be pregnant, they clearly accepted it as an outcome as they had sex. If you role a dice you have to accept 1-6 as an outcome. You cannot just smash the dice if it produces a number you dont like.
Why cant you smash the dice? Who says you have to accept what is given?

Great. So we know what they believe. Care to show me their scientific evidence for their assertions? You can't. There is no evidence. That's why these claims are never support. It's like Dr. Bruce Carlson whose book makes this claim but is only used by pro-life Christian schools. He is of course an expert on Gerontology which makes him an expert on embryology somehow.... WOOT!

I find it amazing that some people cannot grasp that being a scientist does not make everything you say or believe scientific. I work in the field of science but I believe in God. My belief in God is not a scientific point of view. Nor is the belief in God held by any scientist.

Guess what. Medical textbooks are peer reviewed

Guess what. The US government report was peer reviewed.

Guess what. Your annalogy is flawed since these people ARE experts on embryology.

You dont think they would have those opinions without scientific evidence. Your belief in God is not a scientific position. However the postions described here are. If a scientist said "Coldplay are cool" thats not a scientific opinion because its not about science. However if he said "Plants produce oxygen during photosynthis" that would be a scientific opinion as its about science. These opinons are scienfic opinons and they are by scientists in those fields.

Not according to biology. Take a class.

I've already shown you quotes from several biology textbooks that disagree with you as well as a US government scientific report. Do you want to keep ignoring it.

Why cant you smash the dice? Who says you have to accept what is given?

Because in this case, smashing the dice is destroying a life. If you role a dice where one of the outcomes involves a situation where the only way to reslolve it to your liking involves killing someone you should think seriously about rolling that dice.

Because in this case, smashing the dice is destroying a life. If you role a dice where one of the outcomes involves a situation where the only way to reslolve it to your liking involves killing someone you should think seriously about rolling that dice.
We destroy life all the time ... I have yet to see what makes this form special (pre-thought stage).

I say it is up to the person who's body is at stake.

We destroy life all the time ... I have yet to see what makes this form special (pre-thought stage).

I say it is up to the person who's body is at stake.

Its human. And I dont know if you notice but we treat human life as special. An embryo is a whole, individual human life.

Its human. And I dont know if you notice but we treat human life as special. An embryo is a whole, individual human life.
Do I need to point out that Cancer is “human life” with its own distinct DNA as well again?

Guess what. Medical textbooks are peer reviewed

Guess what. The US government report was peer reviewed.

Guess what. Your annalogy is flawed since these people ARE experts on embryology.

You dont think they would have those opinions without scientific evidence. Your belief in God is not a scientific position. However the postions described here are. If a scientist said "Coldplay are cool" thats not a scientific opinion because its not about science. However if he said "Plants produce oxygen during photosynthis" that would be a scientific opinion as its about science. These opinons are scienfic opinons and they are by scientists in those fields.

Without their arguments their opinions are useless. I gave you an example of a 'peer-reviewed' textbook that no medical school will use because it begins with an unscientific assumption. Even the evidence used in it are flawed. So without the arguments, your points are useless. And government reports are often not peer-reviewed, my friend.

So if they said "it is not a distinct human being until it leaves the womb" would you want to see what this is based on or would you just accept it as fact?

I take it from your lack of evidence that you are unable to provide it.

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

Notice how it says it is "growing into another individual" not "is another individual". Of course, like your quotes, it's useless without more information.

Its human. And I dont know if you notice but we treat human life as special. An embryo is a whole, individual human life.

It's human. It is NOT human life. It does not meet the biological requirements for life.

Its human. And I dont know if you notice but we treat human life as special. An embryo is a whole, individual human life.

Yes, we treat human life as special. That's why special consideration should go into the decision wether or not an abortion is had.

And an embryo is surely not a whole, individual human life. At best it's a developing human life, that one day potentially might become a human person.

I guess we already had the part that we don't grant rights to potentials.

Without there arguments their opinions are useless. I gave you an example of a 'peer-reviewed' textbook that no medical school will use because it begins with an unscientific assumption. Even the evidence used in it are flawed. So without the arguments, your points are useless. And government reports are often not peer-reviewed, my friend.

In order to disprove these textbooks, you will have to prove that they begin with an unscienfific discussion.


So if they said "it is not a distinct human being until it leaves the womb" would you want to see what this is based on or would you just accept it as fact?


If it was from an authoritative source I would accept it. Much like the principal of history. If you have a source you can prove is intended to record fact, it is considered to be accurate untill you can find another source which is more contempary to discredit it.


I take it from your lack of evidence that you are unable to provide it.

They clearly had evidence to support their views, else they wouldnt have given them to the report

It's human. It is NOT human life. It does not meet the biological requirements for life.

Funny. A large body of biologists would disagree with you.

Yes, we treat human life as special. That's why special consideration should go into the decision wether or not an abortion is had

Special consideration. So should special consideration go into killing someone but if they do it ultimately its ok?


And an embryo is surely not a whole, individual human life. At best it's a developing human life, that one day potentially might become a human person.

See the quotes made by many and various biology textbooks before hand.

i just wanted to add that there seems to be an overwhelming idea out there that adoption is a good alternative to abortion. In speaking with the majority of people that I know who have been adopted, they would rather not have had to endure the childhoods that they have had. I actually had two people tell me that considering the lives that they have led, they would have rather that their biological mothers end the pregnancy. Sure there are many good cases of adoption, but there are also many bad ones, and many cases of children who never get adopted and spend their lives in the system - what a joy that must be. I'm not saying that adoption is bad, and I have every intention of adopting a child myself one day, what I am saying is that using adoption as the blanket alternative for eliminating abortion is a bit of a rose-coloured glasses attitude.
now that the word BASTARD has fallen from correct usage in modern society and unmarried women no longer face social ostracism for themselves and their babies, its obvious that few women are willing to bring a child into the world and give it away. adoption is a false solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. women who are forced to bear children they dont want will keep them more often than not and raise them in bad circumstances. to force women to go through pregnancy and childbirth in order to satisfy the desires of strangers is pretty creepy.

Holey Moley.

If I cut my finger, some blood oozes out. I clean it with peroxide, which destroyed many blood cells. But each one of those blood cells carries my complete DNA.

OMG!!!! I COMMITTED MURDER!!!

No? Those single cells aren't human?Those are human cells. Not a human.

Exactly the point I was making in a rather sarcastic manner (did you finish reading my post where I stated that it takes more than DNA to make a person?).

Remainder of my point being that in the same way, an embryo hasn't yet acheived human status.

Special consideration. So should special consideration go into killing someone but if they do it ultimately its ok?



See the quotes made by many and various biology textbooks before hand.
So if you rip it out of the uterus it will survive on it's own?

In order to disprove these textbooks, you will have to prove that they begin with an unscienfific discussion.

Already did. We have showed the scientific requirements for life and how an embryo does not and cannot meet them. You've never answered the call to show otherwise.

If it was from an authoritative source I would accept it. Much like the principal of history. If you have a source you can prove is intended to record fact, it is considered to be accurate untill you can find another source which is more contempary to discredit it.

I just posted an authoritarian source. It definitely is an embryologist that claims it is not yet an individual. Of course, without more information it makes it as useful as your quotes.

They clearly had evidence to support their views, else they wouldnt have given them to the report

So where is this evidence? You can't provide it? It seems like it would be very useful to the anti-choice camp, why is it they don't have access to this 'evidence'. Our camp has access to reasons why it is not life. Your camp has access to statements and nothing else. Don't you find this unusual? Clearly, if the evidence existed every anti-choice website out their would be putting everywhere they possibly could. They don't, because it doesn't exist.

Special consideration. So should special consideration go into killing someone but if they do it ultimately its ok?

Surely not, if you kill a human person. Human person =/= human life.

See the quotes made by many and various biology textbooks before hand.

I never doubted that an embryo is a (developing) human life. It's just not yet in the state where we can consider it to be a human person. Since it isn't, it does not have rights.

Wether or not it can be considered *a* complete, indiviual human life is to be seen. It will be interesting to see what Jocabia, Dempublicents1 and others will bring forward.

*In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins

Earlier in this thread we've already covered if life can be terminated (hamburger anyone?).

The important question is if said life in the womb is a human being. Most of your quotes say that life has started, and will develop into a human. Which is to say, those quotes imply that at conception, that embryo is not a human being! I mean, how can it develop into a human if it's already a human?

Yep, some of your quotes weigh more heavily on the pro-choice side than yours...

Tell you what, AII, since you're too lazy to do any work of your own, I'll help you out. Here are some responses to your quotes. I assigned numbers to the quotes from 1-7.

By the way, you should cite your sources rather than plagierize. You copied that list from another site.

I'm not going to do all of the work for you, however. I'll just reference the two first 'medical books' you cited.

1. http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b6147.html

Does anyone else find it interesting that this 'scientific' text released an edition directed specifically toward teaching a specific religion? Hmmmm... I would call that completely unreliable. I would also not, amusingly, the title that you claim is peer-reviewed contains a grammatical error.

2. Now, of course, everyone realizes that the sperm, the ovum and the zygote are all part of the developmental cycle, the continuum that is often referenced by anti-choicers. It's pretty much the first lesson of sex ed.

That means that quote 2 can be thrown out. It merely states that the embryo is a stage of development of the individual. It is important to note that developing into an individual is not the same as being an individual. My father's sperm was a part of my development, but it was not me.

Not so much to 'pretend' the child is their own, but to hide the adoption from gossiping neighbours. I certainly wouldn't want people thinking 'poor girl, can't even have her own family, had to turn to adoption to have a kid', and we all know someone who would think/say that.

Are you a small child? Who cares what the neighboor thinks? This reduces an adopted child to the level of a car. "Oh, I need to get a Lexus, so the neighboors will think I'm rich and won't gossip about me..."

If someone is so immature that "what the neighboors might think" factors into their decision on adoption, then they definitely aren't mature enough to have children. Not to mention that it is still a matter of being able to pretend that the child is theirs - so that the neighboors won't know the truth.

Sometimes nature doesn't think logically, just does whatever is expected of it. You can't force your body, using willpower alone, not to procreate.

Sure you can. You don't have sex. I certainly have the will not to have sex. (Obviously, cases of rape are an exception here).

Even women on contraceptives get pregnant occassionally, although not a huge percentage, and it's usually because of forgetting to take the pill, a split condom, improper fitting diaphragm, etc, etc, etc. The only 100% fool proof way of not getting pregnant is surgery, a little drastic for younger people...

Actually, even surgery is not 100% foolproof - only complete abstinence is (unless immaculate conception occurs). And surgery is drastic for anyone, but I would say the only truly responsible way for someone who absolutely will not take care of a child to have sex is to get sterilized first.

Not so much when you know that child's history. If you know that the child was brought up in a stable, loving environment, he/she's less likely to develop antisocial behaviour. And if the child you adopt is an infant, or at least under the age of 3-4, then you know it's history and are more in control of the situation.

This isn't necessarily true. At least 3/4 of the women I've known well in my life have been sexually abused at some point. Each has reacted differently. Meanwhile, I've seen people with no history of abuse or problems who are antisocial. My brother was raised in the exact same household as me - under the exact same circumstances - and he is incredibly antisocial. I don't think he's been abusive to anyone (physically anyways), but he certainly doesn't understand social behavior.

And I admire you for giving a child a second chance. But if it's your only chance to have a child, people want to go through all stages of a child's life with it, to make it all feel more like a family unit for everyone.

Once again, this isn't about the child, but about the parents. I suppose that is ok, as long as they aren't trying to pretend that they are adopting for the sake of giving a child a home.

Regarding abortion, there have been reports of women who have had trouble conceiving after an abortion they had had several years previous. Did you ever see what goes on when they do a D&C? It's pretty horrible, involves something that looks vaguely like a crochet hook which they shove up there and tear the lining away from the walls of your uterus (this is not to scare you, they do it after a miscarriage and if you haven't passed all of the placenta after birth too). This scars the tissue, quite badly, causing the scar tissue to stick together as it heals, leaving smaller pockets inside instead of the single uterine cavity. Abortions can have devastating effects on some womens fertility later in life. OK, it doesn't happen to everyone, but if your in that small percentage of people who are affected, it's the whole 100% for you.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with what you quoted, but yes, a D&C can be pretty bad, especially if done improperly. Then again, my grandmother had 6 children - each time getting pregnant soon after a D&C (regular D&C's used to be the treatment they gave for endometriosis). Having a live birth can drastically affect your future ability to have children, as can having a miscarriage. Of course, if a woman decides to have an abortion, this risk is part of what she chooses to accept.

I have not avoided the question.

Yes, you have. You still have not explained why I, as someone who will eventually become an elderly person, am not treated as an elderly person. You want to treat a not-yet-human as a fully formed human being. Thus, to extend that logic, you must want to treat children as adults and young adults as elderly adults.

Why can my niece not vote? After all, she will eventually be an adult.
Why can't I get senior-citizen discounts? I will eventally be a senior citizen.

And, again, this is a moral value which you wish to see enforced over all other individuals, thereby legislating your morality.

The purpose of government is not a "moral value" - it is the purpose of government. I do want to have a government - but it is one in which all people can participate, so I'm not really forcing anything on anyone.

Wether or not it can be considered *a* complete, indiviual human life is to be seen. It will be interesting to see what Jocabia, Dempublicents1 and others will bring forward.

We have already shown the arguments for why it cannot be considered a life at all (it is undoubtedly human). I notice that his side of the argument can only provide quotes but can show NONE of the argument for why those quotes are accurate. Don't you find that funny? If it is a human life and it can be shown to be so, why are they unable to show the evidence of this? Why can only supply quotes of opinions? Wouldn't you think they'd all be climbing over one another in order to provide this proof if it exists? Hell, the so-called experts in South Dakota made a spurious argument about DNA and one of them was a gerontologist who used as proof the development of the brain (which happens much later). Isn't it interesting that all of this proof exists and even in a 71-page document from South Dakota they don't mention any of it and instead make a spurious DNA argument (genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for life. Twins are undoubtedly two lives.). Why is it that there side is hiding all of this proof of life? You'd think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Potential is only one factor involved.

Potential isn't a logical factor to use at all, although it can be used in a subjective manner.

A fetus should be protected because it will eventually become a fully developed and independent human being.

This is a subjective personal opinion. I happen to agree with it, but you cannot objectively say, "Potential should be protected."

(Edit: In fact, preventing and punishing rape is protecting the potential of the 5-year-old, as such violent acts can result in injury, physical or mental, that could damage (or, if serious enough, prevent) growth into adulthood)

Hardly. You are protecting the health of the 5-year old *now*. We are talking about damage that occurs immediately and is still around in adulthood, not some sort of late-onset damage.

Also, a fetus (or foetus) is a grouping of cells, correct?

And don't scientists consider bacteria, single-celled organisms life? And since a fetus requires food, air, and water, which it receives from the mother, to grow and develop, like all life does, a symbol that it has the same needs as a human that is ex utero? It moves(kicking, for example). It has nerve, blood, bone, and other cells that develop over time, so isn't it logical to say it is actual life, and must be respected as such?

Yes, single-celled organisms are life. However, a collection of 5, 10, or 20 single-celled organisms is not a single organism. It is 5, 10, or 20. Only if a collection of cells meets the definition of life *as an entity*, is it defined as an organism. An embryo never meets them as an entity. A fetus does, once it has developed a rudimentary nervous system.

If you would really like to claim that a fetus, before the development of a nervous system, is several thousand individual lives, I suppose you could try, but we don't generally define things that way.

So if you rip it out of the uterus it will survive on it's own?

People on life support machines cannot survive without them. Does that make them less human

People on life support machines cannot survive without them. Does that make them less human

Am, yes, If they're brain-dead.

In order to disprove these textbooks, you will have to prove that they begin with an unscienfific discussion.

In order to use these textbooks as evidence, you will have to show what they used as support.

I've heard a scientist say, "There is no God, and I can prove it using physics." He was wrong, of course. I didn't just say, "Well, gee whiz, that there physicist just said he can disprove the existence of God. I would expect actual evidence of the assertion. Maybe that's the difference between scientists and you.

If it was from an authoritative source I would accept it.

That's really sad. So if President Bush tomorrow said, "The law says that I am allowed to eat babies for breakfast on a Tuesday," you would have to accept it. After all, the president is an authoritative source and is the head of the branch that enforces the law. Obviously, if he says he can do it, he can.....

They clearly had evidence to support their views, else they wouldnt have given them to the report

Just like the physicist who said he could use physics to disprove God, despite the fact that such is an idiotic claim?

Just like the "scientists" who claim that the dinosaurs never existed, because they aren't in the Bible?

Just like the "scientists" who claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Funny. A large body of biologists would disagree with you.

Not really. Only a few of those quotes actually state that life begins at conception - and those don't exactly represent "a large body of biologists." Most biologists use, well, the *biological* definition of life.

now that the word BASTARD has fallen from correct usage in modern society and unmarried women no longer face social ostracism for themselves and their babies, its obvious that few women are willing to bring a child into the world and give it away. adoption is a false solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. women who are forced to bear children they dont want will keep them more often than not and raise them in bad circumstances. to force women to go through pregnancy and childbirth in order to satisfy the desires of strangers is pretty creepy.

absolutely!