NationStates Jolt Archive

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

They say that we are all "God's" creatures. "God's" creatures include the mightest lion, and the lowliest amboeba. All of the creatures were created when "God" created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis).

If we are all "God's" creatures, doesn't that mean that every unborn animal should be held in the same regard as an unborn human? That a zygot, embryo, and fetus of non-human creatures be held in the same regard because we are all creatures under one single Creator?

Then... if we all are, that means that when a chicken lays an egg, that egg is a potential life.

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

When a hen lays her egg without a Rooster around, it is no longer able to hold life.

When a woman menstrates, she releases an egg that would've otherwise been a life.

A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

So...

Pro-lifers, how can you eat an egg knowing that it comes from the female of another speices? That it is a squandered life?

How can you mindlessly eat one and yet, insist tha human females cannot use contraceptives, or receive an abortion because of the "sacredness" of life?

And no, I'm not a vegan and I don't care if people eat eggs, I'm merely asking since no one life is valuable than another.

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.

Just for the record, not all pro-lifers are against the birth control pill.

Dude, I'm not in any way a pro-lifer... but your argument could have been alot more persuasive.

George Carlin -
Here's another question I have. How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen, that we passed chickens in goodness. Name 6 ways we're better than chickens. See, nobody can do it! You know why? 'Cause chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No, you don't see a chicken strapping some guy into a chair and hooking up his nuts to a car battery, do you? When's the last chicken you heard about come home from work and beat the shit out of his hen, huh? Doesn't happen, 'cause chickens are decent people.

But let's get back to this abortion shit. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if the fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come if there's a miscarriage there isn't a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have 2 children and 1 on the way" instead of saying "we have 3 children"?

Two things:

You ar right. pro-lifers should protect unborn animals (and born animals). However, pro-lifers dont. Those who beleive in the sanctity of all creatures are "Consistant Lifers" the rest are "Pro-lifers." Both of them are just silly words, but that how everyone classifys it.

Second:

Potential life does not need to be protected. When a chicken lays an egg (as per your example) it is either housing a baby chick, or it is only yoke and white. If it houses a chick, even at an early egg, then it should be protected. If it is simply yoke then eating it is fine.

If you were to look at humans destroy eggs or sperm of humans is fine. Both are just particullar cells that make up humans, they are alive but have no identity on their own (they are part of the human body, like a skin cell). However, when a sperm enters an egg, they both form an independent being known as a zygote. A zygote is a human, not a potential human. The sperm was a potential part of a human, but the zygote is a very youong, very small human.

Does that make sense, Kryozerkia?

if you want more explanaition, feel free to e-mail me, it's part of my job:
joey@calife.net

I would love to continue this discussion here, but I wont be ablke to very soon.

OP: I'm pro-life, but within reason. Some of your proposals are illogical, and the others are impractical.

If a fetus is a human being, how come if there's a miscarriage there isn't a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have 2 children and 1 on the way" instead of saying "we have 3 children"?
That's the most insightful thought I've seen in a while. That's a VERY good point.

And yes, for those thinking it... I'm not sober. I love writing intoxicated philosophical thoughts.

I want to know what Carlin asked:

If a fetus is a person, and a miscarriage is a dead fetus (and can often happen in the first few weeks without the woman's knowledge - it just comes out with her tampon or pad), why don't we force women to search their used tampons and pads for evidence of a miscarriage, so that we can hold a proper funeral?

Fertilization. But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still 6 or 7 days before the egg reaches the uterus, and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far! 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs! So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than 1 period is a serial killer!

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

*snip for length*

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.
It's an interesting point, but the problem is that most "pro-life" individuals aren't really "pro-life" in that general a sense. The majority of "pro-life" individuals are not vegitarians, for instance. Their stance is focused specifically on human life. This stance may be arbitrary, but there you have it.

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

They say that we are all "God's" creatures. "God's" creatures include the mightest lion, and the lowliest amboeba. All of the creatures were created when "God" created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis).

If we are all "God's" creatures, doesn't that mean that every unborn animal should be held in the same regard as an unborn human? That a zygot, embryo, and fetus of non-human creatures be held in the same regard because we are all creatures under one single Creator?

Then... if we all are, that means that when a chicken lays an egg, that egg is a potential life.

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

When a hen lays her egg without a Rooster around, it is no longer able to hold life.

When a woman menstrates, she releases an egg that would've otherwise been a life.

A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

So...

Pro-lifers, how can you eat an egg knowing that it comes from the female of another speices? That it is a squandered life?

How can you mindlessly eat one and yet, insist tha human females cannot use contraceptives, or receive an abortion because of the "sacredness" of life?

And no, I'm not a vegan and I don't care if people eat eggs, I'm merely asking since no one life is valuable than another.

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.



http://www.jonesfamilyfarms.com/images/photos/strawman.jpg

If you only had a brain...

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

They say that we are all "God's" creatures. "God's" creatures include the mightest lion, and the lowliest amboeba. All of the creatures were created when "God" created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis).

If we are all "God's" creatures, doesn't that mean that every unborn animal should be held in the same regard as an unborn human? That a zygot, embryo, and fetus of non-human creatures be held in the same regard because we are all creatures under one single Creator?

Then... if we all are, that means that when a chicken lays an egg, that egg is a potential life.

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

When a hen lays her egg without a Rooster around, it is no longer able to hold life.

When a woman menstrates, she releases an egg that would've otherwise been a life.

A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

So...

Pro-lifers, how can you eat an egg knowing that it comes from the female of another speices? That it is a squandered life?

How can you mindlessly eat one and yet, insist tha human females cannot use contraceptives, or receive an abortion because of the "sacredness" of life?

And no, I'm not a vegan and I don't care if people eat eggs, I'm merely asking since no one life is valuable than another.

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.

You assume that all pro lifers are christians IM not im not very religious although I think their a god Hes certantly not the one told about in the books of fairy tails [Bible koran}. I belive a featus is a person even after it is only a few cells. As for comparing animals to humans we kill Cows pigs chickens weather their eggs or full grown. I am actualy quite angry at pro choicers styrotypicaly defining pro choicers as Bible thumpers.

The reason I see a featus as life is from a purly biological stand point. If 1 cell becomes 2 becomes 4 then I consider that life. I think it is wrong to kill children/featus to me their the same.

On birth control im fine with it to prevent life from occuring is fine just not killing it once it has begun.

The diffrence between a a woman having her period is the life was never created until the child has 46 chromisomes it is only 23 chromosones and thus cant make copies of its self thus it is not living.

The reason I think a abortion is wrong is beacuse the person having it is killing some one as I see it when a stem cell makes copies of its self its alive. Why even have a abortion just give the child up for adoption. Did you know if you take a baby to the police you can give it up no qustions asked?

Lastly I will now ask a stero typical qustion of you why are pro choice against the death penilty. Why cant you kill a murder but you can kill a child as long as its in the womb.

I personally believe the foetus is to be treated a person of its own accord once it would be capable of living independantly of its mother (ie; you could remove it by caeserian birthing and it would still be capable of surviving into adulthood with the appropriate technological and familial support). I wouldn't encourage abortion (since abortion on demand would create needless waste of time, effort, money and biological material with the lapse in self regulation in "parents"), but I would certainly accept it as a plausible option prior to this point.

We are, however, faced with a prospect that this time may become earlier and earlier as our medical knowledge is improved, and it is this area that I personally am most concerned about in the abortion issue. What happens when our medicine becomes such that we could theoretically grow a human being from within a month or even couple of months of its conception? Are we then obliged, if the mother decides she cannot keep this child, to grow it and care for it for her if enough time has passed for this to be possible?

Don't forget that most pro lifers in america are born again republicans, thus they support their messiah, George Bush, who says its ok to kill born babies with bunker busters, but its bad to kill an unborn baby with what ever method they use.

What most people don't get is that even is abortion is illegal, people will still do it, in unhealthy situation, only harming themselves, why not allow it to happen safely?

Don't forget that most pro lifers in america are born again republicans, thus they support their messiah, George Bush, who says its ok to kill born babies with bunker busters, but its bad to kill an unborn baby with what ever method they use.

You forget that I'm a pro-abortion born-again Republican.

You forget that I'm a pro-abortion born-again Republican.
*grumble grumble*

Your own stupid fault for being so goddam confusing. If I can't pigeon-hole people into tidy categories and then hate them based on their associations, then I'm just gonna go back to bed with a big tub of ice cream.

*pout*

Your own stupid fault for being so goddam confusing. If I can't pigeon-hole people into tidy categories and then hate them based on their associations, then I'm just gonna go back to bed with a big tub of ice cream.
Wow. If failing to pigeon-hole people results in ice-cream, I might be persuaded to try to generalise more often.

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

They say that we are all "God's" creatures. "God's" creatures include the mightest lion, and the lowliest amboeba. All of the creatures were created when "God" created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis).

If we are all "God's" creatures, doesn't that mean that every unborn animal should be held in the same regard as an unborn human? That a zygot, embryo, and fetus of non-human creatures be held in the same regard because we are all creatures under one single Creator?

Then... if we all are, that means that when a chicken lays an egg, that egg is a potential life.

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

When a hen lays her egg without a Rooster around, it is no longer able to hold life.

When a woman menstrates, she releases an egg that would've otherwise been a life.

A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

So...

Pro-lifers, how can you eat an egg knowing that it comes from the female of another speices? That it is a squandered life?

How can you mindlessly eat one and yet, insist tha human females cannot use contraceptives, or receive an abortion because of the "sacredness" of life?

And no, I'm not a vegan and I don't care if people eat eggs, I'm merely asking since no one life is valuable than another.

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.


Ignorance at its best, folks! Your egg dealie is compelling, but really misinformed. An egg that is produced by any female of any species, human or not, is simply that: an egg. An unfertilized egg. Yes, it is potential life, but it is not life in and of itself. It's just an egg. Once that egg is fertilized, then it becomes life. Everything is potential: You get health insurance because there is a potential for something to happen to your body. You wear a seatbelt because there is potential to get in a car accident. My point is, potential is different than actuality. When a human egg is fertilized by a sperm, it is then life--no longer potential. See the difference? To address your point, all life is "sacred" in that it came from God. But we can eat animals because, at least for me and to be quite honest, meat is really good. Especially steak. But pork, escargots, fish--all of it is available for consumption. And that's just the way it is.

Ok so that was one of the most illogical unresearched posts ever. If you are pointing at Christians, then you should read the Bible to see whet Christians believe. All through the Bible, in genisis as well, God states that he made man over the animal world. God made man in his image, that means that he gave man 1 a physical body, 2 a spirit, and 3 a soul. Animals also have the first 2, but not the third as the bible tells us. They have a physical body and spirit, but not a soul that goes on to another life when it dies.
As for a woman menstating, she is passing an unfertalized egg. There is no life in that, as well as there being no life in an unfertalized chicken egg. God tells us to have dominion over the animal world, but he also condemns unreasonable cruelty. I think you need to do more research into peoples beliefs before you come up with hair brained ideas like that. It would save yourself alot of embarrasment.

(sorry for the spelling errors, no time to re-check)

To address your point, all life is "sacred" in that it came from God. But we can eat animals because, at least for me and to be quite honest, meat is really good. Especially steak. But pork, escargots, fish--all of it is available for consumption. And that's just the way it is.
"Available for consumption" doesn't seem quite like the right way to put it. You make it sound like meat is in such abundance we can do with it what we like, when in fact a system of regulation is essential in order to continue to provide both our own expanding species and nature itself with everything they need to sustain themselves.

You could, I suppose, look at abortion in the same way. As long as it is properly regulated and doesn't get out of hand, it serves a useful function in society; it is just the misuse of it that causes problems.

"Available for consumption" doesn't seem quite like the right way to put it. You make it sound like meat is in such abundance we can do with it what we like, when in fact a system of regulation is essential in order to continue to provide both our own expanding species and nature itself with everything they need to sustain themselves.

You could, I suppose, look at abortion in the same way. As long as it is properly regulated and doesn't get out of hand, it serves a useful function in society; it is just the misuse of it that causes problems.

True--everything in moderation. Even meat, I suppose, because that would be terrible day when the world runs out of steak...ah well, there's always cloning and massively funded ranches for that kind of thing. On a serious note: Is abortion wrong? Hell yes. Should it be illegal? Hell no. Why? Government is not about denying a decision of an individual because an act is immoral. This is not to say that government should provide abortion facilities. It is merely establishing precedent and legislation which protects the voting individual. Government exists as an entity of the people, therefore it cannot be in opposition to individual rights in critically polarizing issues.

Kryozerkia: That's probably the worst pro-choice debate I have ever heard. What makes us better is that we can think. We can contemplate things like this. Come on.

But Deep Kimchi posted one of the better ones I've heard. (The second part, that is)

But let's get back to this abortion shit. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if the fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come if there's a miscarriage there isn't a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have 2 children and 1 on the way" instead of saying "we have 3 children"?
That's actually a good point.

And for those interested, here are a few of my pro-choice points:

If you illegalise it, people will still do it, unsafely.
It's the womon's body.
The unborn baby can't think for a large portion of it's time in the uturus. I don't claim to know the exact time, but certainly the first trimester.
The unborn baby is a parasite while in the uterus. It takes the woman's food, weighs her down, etc.
What if a woman is raped? Should she be forced to bear another man's child? Go through the pain of childbirth so that she can have a reminder of one of, if not the, worst experiences of her life? And the kid'd be pretty screwed up too, having a father who was a rapist.

And on the note of eggs, the egg of a human, when expelled through menstuation, has half the chromosome count of any other human body cell. Same with the sperm. So that means no more saying that masturbation and menstruation are wastes of human life.
At least, that's what I remember from last year's bio class.

Firstly, a large number of pro lifers are not religious.

Secondly, very little pro lifers are against the birth control pill.

Kryozerkia: That's probably the worst pro-choice debate I have ever heard. What makes us better is that we can think. We can contemplate things like this. Come on.

But Deep Kimchi posted one of the better ones I've heard. (The second part, that is)

That's actually a good point.

And for those interested, here are a few of my pro-choice points:

If you illegalise it, people will still do it, unsafely.
It's the womon's body.
The unborn baby can't think for a large portion of it's time in the uturus. I don't claim to know the exact time, but certainly the first trimester.
The unborn baby is a parasite while in the uterus. It takes the woman's food, weighs her down, etc.
What if a woman is raped? Should she be forced to bear another man's child? Go through the pain of childbirth so that she can have a reminder of one of, if not the, worst experiences of her life? And the kid'd be pretty screwed up too, having a father who was a rapist.

And on the note of eggs, the egg of a human, when expelled through menstuation, has half the chromosome count of any other human body cell. Same with the sperm. So that means no more saying that masturbation and menstruation are wastes of human life.
At least, that's what I remember from last year's bio class.

The second point I would argue with, because it affects more than just her body. The third I would likely argue, if I had more knowledge. The fourth I would dispute as well.

The last one, however, has always been one of those points that made me think really hard without ever coming to a great conclusion, and the first one is definitely the selling point that convinces me to argue against abortion, without arguing against it's legality.

Im generally against abortion(aaagh I can already feel the hate directed towards me)but Im kinda different to most of the 'pro lifers'.
I would never judge anyone who wanted to have an abortion.Im not them so I cant judge,of course I would rather them do it sooner rather than later because the more developed the pregnancy the more potentialy traumatic it could be.Unlike most pro lifers I am not a christian,I beleive birth control is one of the best inventions ever.If people used birth control more often(eg
condom,pill,morning after pill)there would be less need for abortion.I personaly wouldnt have one myself,but who am I to judge, who knows what situation a woman might be in!
By all means have loads of sex,just use contraception so you can bypass the abortion debate altogether.....?

one more thing,a period is passing an unfertilized egg.
I believe people should be aware of their choices.The main problem with abortion is that there is so much cencorship,many who have an abortion are unaware of the risks and the procedures.If you are going to argue for something, you should be well informed.

I am anti-abortion for fairly secular reasons. I believe life begins during fairly late fetal development, once the brain has begun to develop, so therefore killing a fetus after a certain point of development is killing a person. I believe women have a right to have total control over their bodies, but no one has the right to kill their children. I am pro-stem cell research, as that only effects an embryo and not fetuses, and also serves a much greater cause, and I am also pro-birth control.

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

They say that we are all "God's" creatures. "God's" creatures include the mightest lion, and the lowliest amboeba. All of the creatures were created when "God" created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis).

If we are all "God's" creatures, doesn't that mean that every unborn animal should be held in the same regard as an unborn human? That a zygot, embryo, and fetus of non-human creatures be held in the same regard because we are all creatures under one single Creator?

Then... if we all are, that means that when a chicken lays an egg, that egg is a potential life.

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

When a hen lays her egg without a Rooster around, it is no longer able to hold life.

When a woman menstrates, she releases an egg that would've otherwise been a life.

A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

So...

Pro-lifers, how can you eat an egg knowing that it comes from the female of another speices? That it is a squandered life?

How can you mindlessly eat one and yet, insist tha human females cannot use contraceptives, or receive an abortion because of the "sacredness" of life?

And no, I'm not a vegan and I don't care if people eat eggs, I'm merely asking since no one life is valuable than another.

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.

God gave Man the animals for their use (humane) and that includes eating them (after they are killed humanely). No, I don't know the exact verse, but the other point is that the animals were not made in God's image and Man was. No where does He allow the killing of babies or the eating of them (which they are doing in Hong Kong - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/frankenstein.asp). Actually He places a punishment (by the civil authority not by vigilantes (sp?)) of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life if a woman is punched in the stomach and a miscarriage occurs, the punishment based on the harm done to the baby.

I don't know, because I've never punched a pregnant woman (any woman that matter), but I would think that you would punch her to hurt her, not the baby - that means that the harm of the baby is accidental. But it is still enough to warrant the punishment of the offender.

Now if the accidental harm of the unborn child is enough to require that kind of response, should there be a less response because of the purposeful killing of the unborn child? And if I'm wrong, and one does really punch a pregnant woman to hurt the baby, then there's even less thought required. Biblically, of course. Most pro-deathers and pro-choicers don't care what the Bible has to say. And, yes, there are people out there who are pro-death: they support mandatory abortions after the 2nd child or so to reduce over population; they're few and far between, but they exist.

George Carlin -
Here's another question I have. How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen, that we passed chickens in goodness. Name 6 ways we're better than chickens. See, nobody can do it! You know why? 'Cause chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No, you don't see a chicken strapping some guy into a chair and hooking up his nuts to a car battery, do you? When's the last chicken you heard about come home from work and beat the shit out of his hen, huh? Doesn't happen, 'cause chickens are decent people.

But let's get back to this abortion shit. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if the fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come if there's a miscarriage there isn't a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have 2 children and 1 on the way" instead of saying "we have 3 children"?

I <3 George Carlin. :D

Don't forget that most pro lifers in america are born again republicans, thus they support their messiah, George Bush, who says its ok to kill born babies with bunker busters, but its bad to kill an unborn baby with what ever method they use.
"Born again Republican", I like it, it's so honest too.

God gave Man the animals for their use (humane) and that includes eating them (after they are killed humanely).
My god didn't say that animals are less important than people or somehow less deserving of life.

No, I don't know the exact verse, but the other point is that the animals were not made in God's image and Man was.
Says who?

No where does He allow the killing of babies or the eating of them (which they are doing in Hong Kong - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/frankenstein.asp).
If you're going to try to prove a point, use a credible website, not answersingenesis.

Actually He places a punishment (by the civil authority not by vigilantes (sp?)) of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life if a woman is punched in the stomach and a miscarriage occurs, the punishment based on the harm done to the baby.
Yet the punishment for killing a person is death, the punishment for hitting a woman and "killing" her unborn is paying a fine to her husband.

I don't know, because I've never punched a pregnant woman (any woman that matter), but I would think that you would punch her to hurt her, not the baby - that means that the harm of the baby is accidental. But it is still enough to warrant the punishment of the offender.
Actually, if you read the biblical verses on the subject it's not even someone punching the woman intentionally, it's two men are fighting and one of them accidently punches the woman.

Now if the accidental harm of the unborn child is enough to require that kind of response, should there be a less response because of the purposeful killing of the unborn child?
A bigger fine?

Most pro-deathers and pro-choicers don't care what the Bible has to say.
Pro-death like pro-war? Pro-death like pro-capital punishment? No death is involved in abortion unless the woman suffers complications afterwards... and the odds of that happening are much lower than if she gives birth.

And, yes, there are people out there who are pro-death: they support mandatory abortions after the 2nd child or so to reduce over population; they're few and far between, but they exist.
And they live in China, enforcing government regulations... :rolleyes:

Says who?
It says so in Genesis 1:26



Yet the punishment for killing a person is death, the punishment for hitting a woman and "killing" her unborn is paying a fine to her husband.

Could you direct me to that passage?


Actually, if you read the biblical verses on the subject it's not even someone punching the woman intentionally, it's two men are fighting and one of them accidently punches the woman.

Does it being intentional make a difference?

My god didn't say that animals are less important than people or somehow less deserving of life.


Says who?


If you're going to try to prove a point, use a credible website, not answersingenesis.


Yet the punishment for killing a person is death, the punishment for hitting a woman and "killing" her unborn is paying a fine to her husband.


Actually, if you read the biblical verses on the subject it's not even someone punching the woman intentionally, it's two men are fighting and one of them accidently punches the woman.


A bigger fine?


Pro-death like pro-war? Pro-death like pro-capital punishment? No death is involved in abortion unless the woman suffers complications afterwards... and the odds of that happening are much lower than if she gives birth.


And they live in China, enforcing government regulations... :rolleyes:

If animals lives are equal in value to that of Man's why does God prescribe means for them to be killed - as food, sacrifice (for the OT), etc?

The Bible. Since the whole premise was to refute pro-lifers with appeal to God, I assumed the argument was given against Biblical Christians, so I responded with Biblical theology.

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Genesis 1:26

"'Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you [Noah]. And as I [God] gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.'"
Genesis 9:4,5

Did you read the article? They have sited sources.

You are correct: the hitting of the pregnant woman does take place during a fight. But the penalty of a fine is if there is no harm done to the baby, not if there is harm. And again, especially now because I see it's in a fight, the hit was accidental. How can we say that the harm of an unborn child is any less horrible or less deserving of punishment if it's intentional?

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Exodus 21:22-25

Pro-death in reference to abortion and euthenasia.

Not all of them are employed by the Chinese government.

http://www.jonesfamilyfarms.com/images/photos/strawman.jpg

If you only had a brain...

lol how true how true

Quote the verse. There is a punishment for that behavior, but if I recall correctly, it is not "life for life" but a mere fine.

The paying of the fine would be your first record of an emotional-trauma lawsuit kind of thing.

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Exodus 21:22-25

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Exodus 21:22-25

Yes. This can be read as a reference to the harm to the woman - not to the fetus.

I don't know what translation you're using, but JPS has the following:

"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Yes. This can be read as a reference to the harm to the woman - not to the fetus.

I don't know what translation you're using, but JPS has the following:

"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

I like this translation even better, because any harm includes harm to the unborn! Not that my liking has anything to do with whether it's correct or not. I use NIV (New International Version), though it's so concerned with making the Bible understandable, it changes stuff, and ESV (English Standard Version) which is the translation of the verses I referred to. I've never heard of JPS.

I like this translation even better, because any harm includes harm to the unborn!

That's what the Hebrew indicates; it makes no reference to the subject of the harm. That is the best argument for your interpretation.

Even if so, however, births with a significant chance of viability (as the nature of the verse suggests they possess) can only occur with fetuses that are relatively developed, not ones in the stages at which abortion typically occurs.

Not that my liking has anything to do with whether it's correct or not. I use NIV (New International Version), though it's so concerned with making the Bible understandable, it changes stuff, and ESV (English Standard Version) which is the translation of the verses I referred to. I've never heard of JPS.

Jewish Publication Society.

That's what the Hebrew indicates; it makes no reference to the subject of the harm. That is the best argument for your interpretation.

Even if so, however, births with a significant chance of viability (as the nature of the verse suggests they possess) can only occur with fetuses that are relatively developed, not ones in the stages at which abortion typically occurs.

Again, does it matter? Any harm.

Jewish Publication Society.

OOOOOOOOOO..... Never heard of them having a translation of the Bible. Or is it just the Torah?

An egg that is produced by any female of any species, human or not, is simply that: an egg. An unfertilized egg. Yes, it is potential life, but it is not life in and of itself. It's just an egg. Once that egg is fertilized, then it becomes life... My point is, potential is different than actuality. When a human egg is fertilized by a sperm, it is then life--no longer potential. See the difference?

No. Why do you get the draw the line there? Name a single characteristic of that which we associate with a living organism which is present at that point.

Again, does it matter? Any harm.

Absolutely it matters. Many pro-choicers wouldn't, for instance, permit an abortion a day before birth, unless the mother's life is in danger or there is some similar extreme extenuating circumstance. The verse says nothing about the question most often in dispute - whether fetuses in the first trimester are worthy of equal moral consideration to humans.

OOOOOOOOOO..... Never heard of them having a translation of the Bible. Or is it just the Torah?

The Tanach - Torah, Prophets, Writings.

Absolutely it matters. Many pro-choicers wouldn't, for instance, permit an abortion a day before birth, unless the mother's life is in danger or there is some similar extreme extenuating circumstance. The verse says nothing about the question most often in dispute - whether fetuses in the first trimester are worthy of equal moral consideration to humans.

Is there something there that is made of human tissue, cells etc. being harmed (regardless of what it is, though I adamantly believe it is a separate human being)? Then, according to the Scripture, harming it is worthy of punishment in this life. If the mother's life is in danger (It's certain she is going to die. Some people, for reasons beyond my comprehension, say that the woman's life is in danger because she may have to end her career. Quality of economic life and life or death is not the same thing.) If the mother's life is in danger, then it would be permissible to remove the fetus. After waiting as long as you could so that the baby might be able to live in an artificial womb (I'm told they have those now, but I'm not sure) or as soon as possible so that the baby can be given to a surrogate mother. Usually, the baby dies, but it isn't intentional and the doctors and parents were trying to save the baby. The only time that removal of the unborn child is the only option is when the fertilized egg is implanted in the Fallopian Tubes.

The Tanach - Torah, Prophets, Writings.

I knew that the Torah is just the Law, but I had forgotten.

Is there something there that is made of human tissue, cells etc. being harmed (regardless of what it is, though I adamantly believe it is a separate human being)? Then, according to the Scripture, harming it is worthy of punishment in this life.

If "ve'yatzah yaldeihah" ("and her children exit") refers to premature birth rather than to miscarriage, then the Scripture is only talking about harm to fetuses at a stage late enough in pregnancy that premature birth is possible.

If "ve'yatzah yaldeihah" ("and her children exit") refers to premature birth rather than to miscarriage, then the Scripture is only talking about harm to fetuses at a stage late enough in pregnancy that premature birth is possible.

Eh, not necessarily. If the children die in the womb, I'm pretty sure they exit naturally. I don't know that, but that's what I assume.

Dude, this is pointless. The people you're addressing would lose a battle of wits with a stem-cell.

My god didn't say that animals are less important than people or somehow less deserving of life.

My God did.

If YOU can't differentiate the value difference between a three month old rat and a three month old baby beginning to laugh and smile, then I say you are NOT worthy of being hired for any type of evaluation job, including determining dirty toilet paper from clean toilet paper.


A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

You, like the post I quoted above, are essentially claiming here that you can’t tell the difference between the value of a human child and a chicken egg.? Un-stinking believable, no stinking way…. But okay, whatever, Fine, your mother and your father might not be worth more than a chicken in a farmers yard to you, but I think my mother and father are worth more than a chicken in a farmer’s yard. I also think that my children are worth more than a never ending supply of dying chickens. I couldn’t care less about dying chickens when the choice is them or my children, or my neighbors children, or children of people I have never met.

I think rather, it is a total and complete failure of the education system of where you grew up to believe that it was an acceptable comparison to rate chickens against humans for whatever reason whatsoever. It’s sad really, a total and compete lack of empathy for your fellow human beings.

<snip>

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

<snip>
Which simply means that it is our sacred duty to make sure every woman is pregnant as often as possible, from the time she starts menstruating at like 12.

See where the pro-life argument takes you? To the base immorality of sex!

Pro-lifers, particularly Christian pro-lifers, have never put animals on the same level as humans, whether we're talking about abortion or any other issue. No where in the Bible or in main-stream Christian teaching is animal life put on the same level as humans (even though they are consider to be created by God). Read the Bible (Genesis comes to mind offhandedly) or search for Christian writings on the relation of man and human.
Likewise, the secular world has never put animals on the same level as humans. This is obvious, as we slaughter countless animals to eat. Your argument is like saying "anti-murderists, you argue against murdering humans but turn a blind eye to killing animals!" Then saying that murder should be ok as a result of this supposed contradiction.
In secular terms, protecting human life is considered more important because we are the most intelligent and, being human, feel a bond toward other humans. Also, anti-murder laws not only keep us from killing, but, more importantly to many individuals, they protect our life. So, there is a mutual benefit to not killing humans. In Christian terms, humans are set apart for those reasons, but also because Christians believe God created us to be special and set apart from animals.


The pro-life movement believes that life begins at conception. The egg and sperm sex cells aren't life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
Sex cells are haploid cells and have only half the DNA of a living human being. Left alone they do nothing. They are simply cells produced by a man or women -- like skin cells or other type of cells -- except that their task is for reproduction. When fertilization occurs, the embryo has his or her full set of DNA. At this point, it is made of living tissue, is its own entity apart from either the mother or the father, and is using organic processes to maintain its existence. It is most definitely human, which, according to pro-lifers, makes its intentional destruction akin to murder. Whereas if it weren't human, its destruction would be nothing to worry about.

The pro-life movement believes that life begins at conception. The egg and sperm sex cells aren't life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
Sex cells are haploid cells and have only half the DNA of a living human being. Left alone they do nothing. They are simply cells produced by a man or women -- like skin cells or other type of cells -- except that their task is for reproduction. When fertilization occurs, the embryo has his or her full set of DNA. At this point, it is made of living tissue, is its own entity apart from either the mother or the father, and is using organic processes to maintain its existence. It is most definitely human, which, according to pro-lifers, makes its intentional destruction akin to murder. Whereas if it weren't human, its destruction would be nothing to worry about.

Are you explaining your beliefs or others? If the latter, I will point out again that no science supports this distinction. Sex cells are alive before becoming one, albeit not unique, but that is not a definitive characteristic of life. They have the same ability to exist independently as a zygote - once outside the body, they will die. The organic processes of a zygote are not enough to maintain its existence until it develops organs and a nervous system much later. Human cells? Certainly. Human life? Hardly.

Are you explaining your beliefs or others? If the latter, I will point out again that no science supports this distinction. Sex cells are alive before becoming one, albeit not unique, but that is not a definitive characteristic of life. They have the same ability to exist independently as a zygote - once outside the body, they will die. The organic processes of a zygote are not enough to maintain its existence until it develops organs and a nervous system much later. Human cells? Certainly. Human life? Hardly.

"At this point, it is made of living tissue, is its own entity apart from either the mother or the father, and is using organic processes to maintain its existence."

To me, this is a sensical definition of human life.

Is your argument that it's not alive because it is dependent on its mother for survival? If so, I'd like to know what your basis for this distinction is. Specifically, what about its dependence on its mother makes it not alive?



Edit: I need to go to bed. If the topic is still around, I'll be back to the discussion then.

"At this point, it is made of living tissue, is its own entity apart from either the mother or the father, and is using organic processes to maintain its existence."

To me, this is a sensical definition of human life.

Is your argument that it's not alive because it is dependent on its mother for survival? If so, I'd like to know what your basis for this distinction is. Specifically, what about its dependence on its mother makes it not alive?

I don't know, you are the one talking about the notion of genetic uniqueness and/or self-maintenance as being paramount, so why don't you tell me? You see, your "sensible definition" is not uniquely of human life any more than it is really true. One COULD say that is a definition of life, be it human, dolphin, or egret. No matter the creature, however, it is neither existing of its own organic processes nor apart from its mother. It is a unique mass of cells, eventually a unique mass of tissue (where is that transition?) and one could call it living, though I am unsure why it is more alive than sex cells simply for unique DNA. A corpse has unique human DNA, is it alive? Of course, you'll note a corpse is not organically functional, to which I will shift the example to a brain-dead person who is. We can do the dance, or I can just tell you where I am leading it.

I make no claim as to when life begins, I merely point out the folly of doing so. Life exists in levels between and within species, and at certain levels (especially sub-sentient levels) it can be ended without immorality, malice, or harm.

As we know, pro-lifers are all about the sacredness of life as "God" gave us this, and it is a very percious gift.

They say that we are all "God's" creatures. "God's" creatures include the mightest lion, and the lowliest amboeba. All of the creatures were created when "God" created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis).

If we are all "God's" creatures, doesn't that mean that every unborn animal should be held in the same regard as an unborn human? That a zygot, embryo, and fetus of non-human creatures be held in the same regard because we are all creatures under one single Creator?

Then... if we all are, that means that when a chicken lays an egg, that egg is a potential life.

When a woman has her period, that's a potential life.

When a hen lays her egg without a Rooster around, it is no longer able to hold life.

When a woman menstrates, she releases an egg that would've otherwise been a life.

A Pro-lifer refuses to say that the birth control pill is a good thing because they believe that it kills a potential life. But, when a woman menstrates, her body voluntarily expels that egg, but a birth control, an inhibiter prevents that release.

When the hen lays an unfertilised egg, that egg is deemed edible and put on the shelf for human consumption, and the product is bought by pro-lifers, pro-choicers and pro-abortionists, but left along by the radical minded vegans.

So...

Pro-lifers, how can you eat an egg knowing that it comes from the female of another speices? That it is a squandered life?

How can you mindlessly eat one and yet, insist tha human females cannot use contraceptives, or receive an abortion because of the "sacredness" of life?

And no, I'm not a vegan and I don't care if people eat eggs, I'm merely asking since no one life is valuable than another.

I ask on the basis that Natural Selection exists... and it is used to determine the strongest species, and I know that one animal eats another to survive. But humans have evolved to the point where we have all types of modified foods available to us that it isn't necesarry to slaughter an animal for consumption, though it is done because there is still a need to extract the nutrients from that meat.

Oh boy, this makes my day. Life exists to be extinguished. I believe in not harming those that are not meant to defend themselves, such as women and children. But a good old fashioned battle royale with two bands of guys swinging claymores at each other while a third party consisting of bagpipers and drummers plays is fun.

Yes, I am crazy. But I can not believe somebody can not distinguish between humans and animals. THe distinciton is this: Sitting on the top of the food-chain. And cognitive capacities that basically make us able to destroy everything before we feel it's effects. Anybody that thinks an animal's life is worth as much as a human's (exception: heroic dogs vs. drug addicts that I don't know) and won't eat meat because it's murder neglects one simple fact: somebody's always eating somebosy else, so we might as well try to dominate. Which we do. Yay for humanity and highly developed Cerebral Cortexes! :p

However, what you have failed to realize is that abortion requires a conscious choice. :eek: Oh, I know he didn't just say conscious choice. Yes, yes I did. A woman will menstruate without her conscious choice (and probably against their will for most) just as we breath, drink, piss, defecate, occasionally vomit when we get sick or drink too much alcohol (Anybody of Celtic descent may disregard that last bit), and have our hearts pump. Ain't Human physiology great? Abortion is an act of willful decision. IF YOU CAN'T GET THAT, CONGRATS, YOU HAVE NEVER HAD, NOR WILL EVER HAVE, A SOUL!!! That is one of the three things that seperates us from all other creatures. As I said, the others are intellect and the capacity to make booze.

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
:upyours: :upyours:

Oh boy, this makes my day. Life exists to be extinguished. I believe in not harming those that are not meant to defend themselves, such as women and children. But a good old fashioned battle royale with two bands of guys swinging claymores at each other while a third party consisting of bagpipers and drummers plays is fun.

Yes, I am crazy. But I can not believe somebody can not distinguish between humans and animals. THe distinciton is this: Sitting on the top of the food-chain. And cognitive capacities that basically make us able to destroy everything before we feel it's effects. Anybody that thinks an animal's life is worth as much as a human's (exception: heroic dogs vs. drug addicts that I don't know) and won't eat meat because it's murder neglects one simple fact: somebody's always eating somebosy else, so we might as well try to dominate. Which we do. Yay for humanity and highly developed Cerebral Cortexes! :p

However, what you have failed to realize is that abortion requires a conscious choice. :eek: Oh, I know he didn't just say conscious choice. Yes, yes I did. A woman will menstruate without her conscious choice (and probably against their will for most) just as we breath, drink, piss, defecate, occasionally vomit when we get sick or drink too much alcohol (Anybody of Celtic descent may disregard that last bit), and have our hearts pump. Ain't Human physiology great? Abortion is an act of willful decision. IF YOU CAN'T GET THAT, CONGRATS, YOU HAVE NEVER HAD, NOR WILL EVER HAVE, A SOUL!!! That is one of the three things that seperates us from all other creatures. As I said, the others are intellect and the capacity to make booze.

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:


Yay! Let's spew hate because that convinces everyone.:rolleyes:

I agree with your zeal, but not your level of tact.

Not that I'm a perfect saint either (or perfect in any way), but you need to tone it down. Thanks.

However, what you have failed to realize is that abortion requires a conscious choice. :eek: Oh, I know he didn't just say conscious choice. Yes, yes I did. A woman will menstruate without her conscious choice (and probably against their will for most) just as we breath, drink, piss, defecate, occasionally vomit when we get sick or drink too much alcohol (Anybody of Celtic descent may disregard that last bit), and have our hearts pump. Ain't Human physiology great? Abortion is an act of willful decision. IF YOU CAN'T GET THAT, CONGRATS, YOU HAVE NEVER HAD, NOR WILL EVER HAVE, A SOUL!!! That is one of the three things that seperates us from all other creatures. As I said, the others are intellect and the capacity to make booze.
Knowingly doing something immoral doesn't make it less immoral, it simply makes you less at fault for it.
And of course, someone before suggested a solution to the OP's attempt at a moral dilemma, showing it is indeed a choice, although not a choice any sane person would make.
But I think the point the OP was trying to get at was: Human egg is to human as chicken egg is to chicken as proof birth control pills aren't immoral.