Home - List All Discussions

Would you be willing to accept this compromise?

by: JRH

Abortion is an issue that will always divide people. I don't think that can every change, and even though I am a pro choice advocate the abortion of late term fetuses bothers me. I think that even though a woman has a choice, the fetus may have a legitimate claim to "squatters rights", as they say. So I am going to propose what I think is the ideal system for regulating abortions. I want to know if you think it is reasonable.
I would propose that abortion be limited to 12 weeks into the pregnancy. Before this there is not enough of the brain formed for there to be any sort of awareness, and this is something I think most people can agree would be alright. Late term exceptions would be made in my system for those pregnancies which threaten the mothers life, or may cause severe injury to her.
Seem fair?

reply from: JRH

Fair to whom?
To both sides , in that the extreme pro choicer do not get to kill n 8 month fetus, and a woman who has only been pregnant long enough to have a clump of cells inside her can get an abortion to prevent serious changes in her life. I know some extremists will disagree with my proposal, but I think that the moderate position is what most Americans would take on the issue of abortion if given a chance to vote for it. Few are hardliners one way or another.

reply from: JRH

Some are like that, but I don't want to paint the group of pro lifers in general with that broad a brush.

reply from: BossMomma

Not true, I support the use of the morning after pill which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and thus, prevents a pregnancy.

reply from: BossMomma

Some are like that, but I don't want to paint the group of pro lifers in general with that broad a brush.
I would say that if a pro-lifer didn't think life began at conception and supported any form of abortion (other than to save the mother from dying as a result of the pregnancy) then that person is not pro-life.
80% of a woman's fertilized eggs never implant, most women have no idea whether or not their last period has expelled a fertilized egg. I believe that life begins with a heart beat and am not opposed to preventing implantation, yet I am pro-life. No one gets to define my stance but me.

reply from: Rhiannontex

Fair to whom?
To both sides , in that the extreme pro choicer do not get to kill n 8 month fetus, and a woman who has only been pregnant long enough to have a clump of cells inside her can get an abortion to prevent serious changes in her life. I know some extremists will disagree with my proposal, but I think that the moderate position is what most Americans would take on the issue of abortion if given a chance to vote for it. Few are hardliners one way or another.
Clump of cells...if I had a nickel for every time I see that phrase, I'd be rich. By the time most women are even AWARE that they're pregnant, the unborn has progressed far beyond being a mere "clump of cells".

reply from: BossMomma

Since when were you pro-life?
You really should learn to follow posts. The death of my unborn son changed my views, along with my now ex boyfriend's demand that I abort him selectively because there were chances that he would have some disabilities due to stunted growth.

reply from: JRH

Fair to whom?
To both sides , in that the extreme pro choicer do not get to kill n 8 month fetus, and a woman who has only been pregnant long enough to have a clump of cells inside her can get an abortion to prevent serious changes in her life. I know some extremists will disagree with my proposal, but I think that the moderate position is what most Americans would take on the issue of abortion if given a chance to vote for it. Few are hardliners one way or another.
Clump of cells...if I had a nickel for every time I see that phrase, I'd be rich. By the time most women are even AWARE that they're pregnant, the unborn has progressed far beyond being a mere "clump of cells".
Well, with all due respect I disagree with you. You yourself are actually a clump of cells. The fetus at the stage has no awareness and is nothing but cells. Unlike you, it can not reason or feel.

reply from: CharlesD

I'm just a clump of cells too, a clump that is rapidly approaching 40 years since birth. That makes me a more advance clump than an embryo, but I'm still a clumping together of different cells that make up a human being. The only difference between me now and me when I was an embryo is that I am more developed (a little too developed around the middle, but that's a different story) than I was then. I am now only dependent on my mother for occasional advice instead of daily sustenance, but that doesn't make me more human now than I was then, or more deserving of life now than I was then.
The other area where I disagree with you is the idea of abortion to "prevent serious changes in her life." By life, do you mean lifestyle, or do you mean an actual threat to her physical life, something that could possibly kill her? If you mean her actual life, then we are not too far off. I would accept an exception for the mother who's life is in immediate jeopardy and the only thing that will save her life is the removal of the baby, but even then I believe the baby should be removed alive and every effort made to keep baby and mother alive.
If you mean lifestyle, then we are at an impasse. I cannot under any circumstances condone the killing of another human being because that person would be an inconvenience to the mother. The mother's financial situation, number of kids in her family already, whether or not she can afford child care, or whether or not she wants to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy are all irrelevant to whether or not it is right to take the life of an innocent human being. If she doesn't want the child, then there is adoption. The taking of an innocent life for any other reason than to save your own life is inexcusable, at any point during pregnancy. Awareness has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing an unborn child either. If I kill you while you are asleep, you are unaware of what is going on, but that doesn't make you any less dead or me any less of a murderer.
So that's my take. If that makes me an extremist, then so be it. I am extremely interested in the defense of those who cannot defend themselves. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater

reply from: scopia19822

Not true, I support the use of the morning after pill which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and thus, prevents a pregnancy.
I only support givig it to rape victims. I think the more readily available it becomes, abortions and unwanted pregnancies will go down, which is a good thing. But I think it will lead to an increase in STDs. Because people will become careless about condom use if they have the morning afterpill readily available.

reply from: BossMomma

I hate to disappoint, but your posts aren't that important to me.
Nothing much beyond blind discrimination and erroneous arguments seem to be important to you. You cry about homophobes yet bash those with religion who've never done a thing to you. You equate a rape victim who aborts with her rapist, then claim you have no opinion in the matter of abortion. You claim 3 months of basic training is harder than 18 years of responsible parenting then get pissed when real parents call you out. I honestly wonder why you're here, you have nothing of value to add to the topic what so ever.

reply from: BossMomma

Not true, I support the use of the morning after pill which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and thus, prevents a pregnancy.
I only support givig it to rape victims. I think the more readily available it becomes, abortions and unwanted pregnancies will go down, which is a good thing. But I think it will lead to an increase in STDs. Because people will become careless about condom use if they have the morning afterpill readily available.
Condoms don't provide 100% protection against STDs, nor does any other form of birth control. At least the morning after pill will provide protection from unwanted pregnancy.

reply from: scopia19822

"Nothing much beyond blind discrimination and erroneous arguments seem to be important to you. You cry about homophobes yet bash those with religion who've never done a thing to you. You equate a rape victim who aborts with her rapist, then claim you have no opinion in the matter of abortion. You claim 3 months of basic training is harder than 18 years of responsible parenting then get pissed when real parents call you out. I honestly wonder why you're here, you have nothing of value to add to the topic what so ever."
Boss I have Vex on ignore, it makes things so much simpler.

reply from: scopia19822

Did you sleep through biology and anatomy class in high school? All fetal organs are formed by week 10. Here is a link on fetal development in the 1st trimester.
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php

I really think alot of you proaborts need to go back to school and not sleep through biology and anatomy class this time.

reply from: JRH

I'm just a clump of cells too, a clump that is rapidly approaching 40 years since birth. That makes me a more advance clump than an embryo, but I'm still a clumping together of different cells that make up a human being. The only difference between me now and me when I was an embryo is that I am more developed (a little too developed around the middle, but that's a different story) than I was then. I am now only dependent on my mother for occasional advice instead of daily sustenance, but that doesn't make me more human now than I was then, or more deserving of life now than I was then.
The other area where I disagree with you is the idea of abortion to "prevent serious changes in her life." By life, do you mean lifestyle, or do you mean an actual threat to her physical life, something that could possibly kill her? If you mean her actual life, then we are not too far off. I would accept an exception for the mother who's life is in immediate jeopardy and the only thing that will save her life is the removal of the baby, but even then I believe the baby should be removed alive and every effort made to keep baby and mother alive.
If you mean lifestyle, then we are at an impasse. I cannot under any circumstances condone the killing of another human being because that person would be an inconvenience to the mother. The mother's financial situation, number of kids in her family already, whether or not she can afford child care, or whether or not she wants to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy are all irrelevant to whether or not it is right to take the life of an innocent human being. If she doesn't want the child, then there is adoption. The taking of an innocent life for any other reason than to save your own life is inexcusable, at any point during pregnancy. Awareness has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing an unborn child either. If I kill you while you are asleep, you are unaware of what is going on, but that doesn't make you any less dead or me any less of a murderer.
So that's my take. If that makes me an extremist, then so be it. I am extremely interested in the defense of those who cannot defend themselves. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater
A sperm is also a clumping of cells which is underdeveloped, as is a embryo. We store embryos all the time as it happens, but I don't see pro lifers complaining we are jailing people who deserve liberty.
I do not mean "lifestyle". Pregnancy causes serious physical changes and it is these changes which no person should be subjected to.
A person who is asleep is still aware, as it happens. They are dreaming and are aware in their dreams. They have already got a brain and everything else needed to have a mind. Prior to 12 week a fetus has not developed these and I do not see how you could regard it as a person. It is simply something akin to a sperm or an egg.
FYI, Barry Goldwater was a staunch defender of the right of a woman to choose, so I find it amusing you would quote him at me.

reply from: JRH

Did you sleep through biology and anatomy class in high school? All fetal organs are formed by week 10. Here is a link on fetal development in the 1st trimester.
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
">http://www.pregnancy.org/pregn...evelopment1.php
I really think alot of you proaborts need to go back to school and not sleep through biology and anatomy class this time.
What I mean is that it has not developed brain activity tht indicates self awareness,and also the ability to feel pain.
From wikipedia (links to reputablw web sites are included as citations on the bottom of the wiki page)
"Weeks 11-17
Artist's depiction of fetus in the 11th week (i.e. 8 weeks after fertilization). The crown-rump length is 1.25 inches.[8]
The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 11th week.[2] At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams.[2] The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size.[9] Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[10]The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.[11][12]
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and will not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.[13][14] At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop.[15]
From weeks 11 to 14, the fetal eyelids close and remain closed for several months, and the fetus' sex may be apparent.[16] Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver, however the majority of red blood cells will be made later in gestation (at 21 weeks) by bone marrow.[9] A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool).[9] Fetal skin is almost transparent. The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week.[17]
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Weeks_11-17

Perhaps it is you who needs to study a bit more.

reply from: fetalisa

Actually, abortion only divides those who wish to impose their personally chosen moral codes, usually religiously based, onto all in the form of law. It sucks for them we left the Dark Ages, when the church was the government, centuries ago.
Why? What do you expect women with hydrocephalus fetuses to do? They can't birth them because their heads are too big. They won't live more than 3 hours once outside of the womb anyway. That is precisely what D&X is for. Now that the Supremes have banned D&X, the only option these women have are procedures that cost more money and have more risk. Why would you be against a medical procedure with lower costs & lower surgical risks, which results in lower insurance premiums? Is it because a waterhead fetus is somehow 'owed' no more than 3 hours of life? What kind of a life is that anyway?
Ok. I will die without your kidney. I claim squatters rights on your kidney. You have no choice but to give me your kidney, because I will die without it. When can I pick it up?
Why?
Who died and made you Queen of Reproductive Decisions For All?
We do not practice forced organ donation in our society, which is precisely why I can not take your kidney without your consent, even though I might die without it.
Why do you argue that a fetus should have special rights that even the born do not possess? I can not use your kidney without your consent, even though I might die without it. How can a zef use a uterus without consent, when even the born have no such right? How can you justify granting a special right to fetuses that the born do not even possess? Don't you find that to be both insane and absurd?

reply from: Rhiannontex

Fetalisa, I beg to differ with you about hydrocephalus babies. Please read this article: http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/35471/Nav/1/router.asp
Note the section where it says: Even if it SHOULD require a C-section, that is not grounds for an abortion, not for anyone with an ounce of compassion or decency.

reply from: carolemarie

How about just for rape, incest and the life of the mother? That is a compromise I can live with.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

A mother and father that have entered into a contactual agreement need to honor their commitment. There are no "escape clauses", especially when it comes to killing another living human being.

reply from: CharlesD

A sperm is one cell, if I remember my high school biology well enough. I might have forgotten a lot, but I remember that one. It doesn't develop into anything else on its own. It is not a complete human being, as is an embryo.
Yes, pregnancy causes physical and hormonal changes. Those changes are a natural part of pregnancy, not some abnormality that has to be dealt with. Now I'm no expert here, but don't some of those changes occur pretty quickly at the onset of pregnancy, so by the time you would be considering an abortion, it's too late? Some women who have been or are currently pregnant could possibly enlighten me a bit on that. Don't want that to happen, don't get pregnant. There are ways to avoid that. As has been discussed, those methods aren't completely 100% effective, but they do work most of the time. If you're going to be sexually active, pregnancy is a risk you have to accept. The child is an innocent party here and does not deserve to be killed for someone else's mistakes.
Awareness and ability to feel pain are really irrelevant. Where do you draw the line between a being that is aware and able to understand what is going on and one that isn't? Heck, an infant has limited awareness. Sure, there is some brain activity going on there, but most of what is going on in that head is along the lines of being hungry, tired, or having just filled the diaper. Scientifically speaking, awareness and ability to feel pain is not what makes one human. An embryo is a human being, not any other species, and that fact has been well established here. Killing innocent humans is not right. There might be a law that states that certain innocent humans can be killed, but that is not a just law.
Heck, I know about Goldwater's stand there, and I don't like it, but I've always liked that quote. It is applicable here.
Also, and this is really in response to another post, you can't use the argument that the pro life view stems from religious belief and is therefore somehow invalid. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who are also pro life. How do you explain that? In their case, it doesn't come from a religious viewpoint, but a scientific one. You will also notice that I have avoided using religious based arguments here, even though I am a Christian. I just think that you don't need to use religion to argue against abortion. You can use science to establish the humanity of the unborn and once you have done that it's really just a matter of whether or not it is right to kill innocent humans. Plenty of non religious people believe that you shouldn't do that.

reply from: BossMomma

I'll likely put her there myself soon, she is nothing but a troll with nothing of value to give or take pertaining to the subject.

reply from: JRH

A sperm is one cell, if I remember my high school biology well enough. I might have forgotten a lot, but I remember that one. It doesn't develop into anything else on its own. It is not a complete human being, as is an embryo.
Yes, pregnancy causes physical and hormonal changes. Those changes are a natural part of pregnancy, not some abnormality that has to be dealt with. Now I'm no expert here, but don't some of those changes occur pretty quickly at the onset of pregnancy, so by the time you would be considering an abortion, it's too late? Some women who have been or are currently pregnant could possibly enlighten me a bit on that. Don't want that to happen, don't get pregnant. There are ways to avoid that. As has been discussed, those methods aren't completely 100% effective, but they do work most of the time. If you're going to be sexually active, pregnancy is a risk you have to accept. The child is an innocent party here and does not deserve to be killed for someone else's mistakes.
Awareness and ability to feel pain are really irrelevant. Where do you draw the line between a being that is aware and able to understand what is going on and one that isn't? Heck, an infant has limited awareness. Sure, there is some brain activity going on there, but most of what is going on in that head is along the lines of being hungry, tired, or having just filled the diaper. Scientifically speaking, awareness and ability to feel pain is not what makes one human. An embryo is a human being, not any other species, and that fact has been well established here. Killing innocent humans is not right. There might be a law that states that certain innocent humans can be killed, but that is not a just law.
Heck, I know about Goldwater's stand there, and I don't like it, but I've always liked that quote. It is applicable here.
Also, and this is really in response to another post, you can't use the argument that the pro life view stems from religious belief and is therefore somehow invalid. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who are also pro life. How do you explain that? In their case, it doesn't come from a religious viewpoint, but a scientific one. You will also notice that I have avoided using religious based arguments here, even though I am a Christian. I just think that you don't need to use religion to argue against abortion. You can use science to establish the humanity of the unborn and once you have done that it's really just a matter of whether or not it is right to kill innocent humans. Plenty of non religious people believe that you shouldn't do that.
You say that pregnancy is a risk you have to accept, but I disagree with you there on the grounds that it may not have been your goal to get pregnant. If you get pregnant I think you have a right to choose not to allow the fetus to use your body if you do not wish it to do so, and so I support the right to choose. I don't particularly care that the fetus is innocent. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand in my opinion. The only reason I would limit the right to get an abortion at all is because I think a strong argument can be made that after a certain time the fetus has "squatters rights", and should no longer be aborted. The woman, in other words, needs to make a quick decision.
Secondly, I think awareness and ability to feel pain are very relevant. Without any sort of awareness I do not consider a fetus to be a person. You are correct that a fetus is already human, however, it is not a human in the way that you and I are human people. Its humanity is different than ours. It is human but only in the sense a Hela culture is human, or a sperm cell. I do not grant you that just because something is human it is worthy of protection. Only human persons are deserving of protections under the law, and a fetus simply does not qualify at the stage I am talking about.
To address your point about religion , I think that the vast majority of pro lifers are religious, and that their pro life views stem from their religious belief. Your "secular" argument is patently nonsensical. You can use science, as I have implied, to establish a Hela culture is human. Just because it is human does not mean it is a person with rights.

reply from: JRH

I am sorry, but I feel that all women deserve the chance to have an abortion if they want one.

reply from: cracrat

I am sorry, but I feel that all women deserve the chance to have an abortion if they want one.
Absolutely, otherwise millions might feel left out...

reply from: JRH

Actually, abortion only divides those who wish to impose their personally chosen moral codes, usually religiously based, onto all in the form of law. It sucks for them we left the Dark Ages, when the church was the government, centuries ago.
Why? What do you expect women with hydrocephalus fetuses to do? They can't birth them because their heads are too big. They won't live more than 3 hours once outside of the womb anyway. That is precisely what D&X is for. Now that the Supremes have banned D&X, the only option these women have are procedures that cost more money and have more risk. Why would you be against a medical procedure with lower costs & lower surgical risks, which results in lower insurance premiums? Is it because a waterhead fetus is somehow 'owed' no more than 3 hours of life? What kind of a life is that anyway?
Ok. I will die without your kidney. I claim squatters rights on your kidney. You have no choice but to give me your kidney, because I will die without it. When can I pick it up?
Why?
Who died and made you Queen of Reproductive Decisions For All?
We do not practice forced organ donation in our society, which is precisely why I can not take your kidney without your consent, even though I might die without it.
Why do you argue that a fetus should have special rights that even the born do not possess? I can not use your kidney without your consent, even though I might die without it. How can a zef use a uterus without consent, when even the born have no such right? How can you justify granting a special right to fetuses that the born do not even possess? Don't you find that to be both insane and absurd?You don't seem to understand the concept of squatters rights at all, which has led you to make absurd statements. My kidney is something which you can not claim squatters rights to use because you have not used it. If a homeless man lives in a broken down tenement because the owner does not kick him out, eventually he will have earned the right to claim "squatters rights" if the man who owns the building does try to kick him out. The logic behind it is that he had every chance to do so, but did not so now the man should not be able to change his mind and displace our homeless friend.
In a similar vein, people own their bodies. I do not question at all, however, once a woman has allowed her pregnancy to get further along and taken no action she has done the same thing as the man in the previous example. I am of the opinion the same legal concept should be applied. Since you have never been using my kidney to start with, then obviously, you can't claim squatters rights and try to take it. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed and useless.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Some are like that, but I don't want to paint the group of pro lifers in general with that broad a brush.
The thing is, what you propose is what the reality is already. Not that elective abortion past 12 weeks is illegal, just that MOST abortions happen before then. Making it illegal past 12 weeks wouldn't really change anything at all. That said, I think that it is of course at least ONE step in the right direction.
As for late term abortions, past 27 weeks in MOST places elective abortion is already illegal. It should be narrowed down to only the mother's life IMO, since right now it's called "health" and with enough wriggling, anything can be used as an excuse under that clause.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ok.
Vexing's posts are so unimportant to ME, I have her on ignore.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well then you're really out of the loop; many pro-lifers (myself not included) find the holding and destruction of IVF embryos to be appalling. They adopt these children. They are called snowflake babies.

reply from: JRH

Well then you're really out of the loop; many pro-lifers (myself not included) find the holding and destruction of IVF embryos to be appalling. They adopt these children. They are called snowflake babies.
I wasn't aware you constitute a majority of pro lifers or a significant number of people.

reply from: abc123

Or how about rape, incest, the life of the mother and you? Are you okay with that compromise? If you are willing to compromise on a baby conceived in rape, then really what is your point in being in this battle, you are weakening the position of pro-lifers by your pro-abortion views of innocent rape and incest babies? When you go to the clinic do you make this same compromise? If a mother goes in and says, "I was raped" do you just okay I agree with what your doing, carry on....

reply from: nancyu

Fair to whom?
To both sides , in that the extreme pro choicer do not get to kill n 8 month fetus, and a woman who has only been pregnant long enough to have a clump of cells inside her can get an abortion to prevent serious changes in her life. I know some extremists will disagree with my proposal, but I think that the moderate position is what most Americans would take on the issue of abortion if given a chance to vote for it. Few are hardliners one way or another.
Clump of cells...if I had a nickel for every time I see that phrase, I'd be rich. By the time most women are even AWARE that they're pregnant, the unborn has progressed far beyond being a mere "clump of cells".
Well, with all due respect I disagree with you. You yourself are actually a clump of cells. The fetus at the stage has no awareness and is nothing but cells. Unlike you, it can not reason or feel.
Not at all unlike you though JRH.

reply from: carolemarie

Because rape and incest are the reasons that most Americans can be persuaded to vote to keep abortion legal. If those hard cases are out of the mix, instantly over 90% of all abortions are outlawed.
If someone has been raped or is a victim of incest, I am all for counseling them and trying to help them let their baby live. Not all of them want or will want an abortion in the first place. We can work for alternatives for them.
This isn't just about the baby, it is about the mother as well. Victims of violent crimes are not the same as a woman who choses abortion.

reply from: nancyu

Maybe you could live with that compromise. The unwanted offspring of rape and incest victims could not. Neither could any unwanted, unborn child who in any way threatens the life or health of his or her mother in any way. (Which, by the way, includes just about any unwanted, unborn child)

reply from: carolemarie

I didn't say the health and emotional well being of the mother. I said the LIfe of the mother.
And the 2% of remaining possible abortions would be a great reduction in the slaughter.

reply from: JRH

Since you agree that we are all "clumps of cells," what was the purpose in stating that qualification as you did? Were you implying that the unborn are "nothing more," but that born people, while also "clumps of cells," are in fact much more than that, while the unborn are not? Is it the fact that more developed persons can "reason and feel" that makes them significant in your view? I would point out the fact that an unconscious person of any age can not "reason or feel" while unconscious, yet you would no doubt deem them to be significant based solely on the capacity to "reason and feel." This capacity is inherent in all normal human beings.
Like an unconscious adult, a human blastocyst or zygote has the capacity to reason and feel, even though it is currently incapable of either. In my view, since it is this capacity (which is inherent in all normal human beings) that apparently makes human beings significant, the argument must logically apply to human beings at any age and any level of physical development, therefore it is the fact that an entity is human (a human individual) that makes their life significant.
It most certainty does not have the capacity to reason and feel. It has the potential to develop the capacity do both, though I don't think that matters. Until they have the ability to do so it will not matter to me if they die. Not even a little bit.

reply from: JRH

What does "pain" have to do with anything? A normal adult can be killed painlessly, but the fact that s/he felt no pain does not imply that no harm was done in killing them, nor would current "awareness" be a significant factor, since adult humans are frequently unconscious. They would suffer harm if they were killed painlessly while "unaware," just as an unborn child who is robbed of any possibility of future existence is irreparably harmed.
Lose of future existence on Earth is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially if you think that a fetus goes to heaven if it is aborted. The only thin they are robbed of then is the chance to not believe in god on Earth and wind up in hell forever......

reply from: JRH

A dreaming person is experiencing an altered state of consciousness, and is certainly not experiencing any form of conscious thought. "Unconscious" describes a lack of consciousness, and "awareness" is a conscious function. Will you argue that a person under general anesthesia can "reason or feel?" So why can't I kill someone while they are still "under?" Because they retain that inherent capacity to "reason and feel," and are still significant based solely on the fact that they are human beings, conscious or not....
Incidentally, a human sperm or egg (unfertilized) are human, but are not human beings but simply reproductive cells, parts of human beings like your hair or nails. Discussion of human cells that are not, in fact, human individuals in their own right are out of place in this context.
You most certainly are aware when you dream, otherwise how could you remember it.
You even contradict yourself " dreaming person is experiencing an altered state of consciousness, and is certainly not experiencing any form of conscious thought."
How can I not be having any form of conscious thought, if I am in an altered state of consciousness?
As for a sperm being a simple reproductive cell, I must remind you that it is a stage of the development of human life! LOL I see a blastocyst the same way you apparently see sperm cell.

reply from: JRH

If you intend to engage in semantic distractions, at least show me the courtesy of presenting intelligent objections.
capacity:
4. actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand: He has a capacity for hard work. The capacity of the oil well was 150 barrels a day. She has the capacity to go two days without sleep.
Dictionary:
capacity
(k?-p?s'?-t?) pronunciation
7. The position in which one functions; role: in your capacity as sales manager.
I was using it in this regard. You are, in your current state, are in your capacity as a thinking being and a fetus is not.....

reply from: JRH

Because they have already developed it in the first place, while a fetus has not. Peter Singer, who is a philosopher I greatly admire made this distinction ages ago. Since the fetus has never had the ability in the past it is clearly in a different category.

reply from: JRH

Then it should be acceptable to kill any human being, at any age, and any level of development....
Um, only if they will go to heaven. You can't know that with adults as it would involved what Christians call "knowing their relationship with god". You don't want to send someone to hell by making an incorrect assessment. They assert ALL infants go to heaven, however, so you don't have to worry that killing one of them will send someone to hell .

reply from: lukesmom

fetalisa, your ignorance is monumental. Children with hydro are born c-section and after birth can have surgery to correct the condition and go on to live normal lives. You may very well have encountered these very normal people without even knowing it. Hydrocephaly is a treatable condition NOT a death sentence for the child.
many children diagnosed with the disorder benefit from rehabilitation therapies and educational interventions and go on to lead normal lives with few limitations.[/Treatment by an interdisciplinary team of medical professionals, rehabilitation specialists, and educational experts is critical to a positive outcome. Left untreated, progressive hydrocephalus may be fatal.
B] http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/hydrocephalus/detail_hydrocephalus.htm#125333125

Now, as a mother to a child who had an actual fatal prenatal diagnosis and died 45min after birth, I can tell you personally, 9 months and 3 hours is a wonderful life with purpose. I wish my son would have had at least that much life but he was loved and cherished every minute of his 36 weeks and 45 mins of life. Actually, isn't that perfection in life?

reply from: lukesmom

How many unborn have died to make you "Queen" of death in the name of reproductive "choice"?

reply from: CharlesD

Those two words I bolded are irrelevant. Right and wrong are not just matters of personal opinion. It is either right or wrong to kill innocent humans, regardless of your feelings on the topic.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well then you're really out of the loop; many pro-lifers (myself not included) find the holding and destruction of IVF embryos to be appalling. They adopt these children. They are called snowflake babies.
I wasn't aware you constitute a majority of pro lifers or a significant number of people.
I don't consist of the majority, which is why I said "myself NOT included".

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

When a child is killed he/she is dead. Death is the absence of life. A person does not contiune consciously living after death, they do not go to experience heaven. Death is our enemy, not our friend. The harsh reality is that a dead person ceases to experience life when they are dead. Death is a tragedy of untold magnitude. Death robs a person of everything.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

When a child is killed he/she is dead. Death is the absence of life. A person does not contiune consciously living after death, they do not go to experience heaven. Death is our enemy, not our friend. The harsh reality is that a dead person ceases to experience life when they are dead. Death is a tragedy of untold magnitude. Death robs a person of everything.
Death is the unavoidable end of life. It is not our enemy, it is not a "tragedy of untold magnitude" and it doesn't rob the person who dies of ANYTHING except their physical existence. Even the Bible tells us that there is a time to live and a time to die. If death was not part of God's plan, we would not die, correct?
Of course, death is difficult for family and friends to deal with, especially the death
of a young child, death at an early age by disease or accident, slow and lingering detioration leading to death or sudden death. But in many cases, death is KIND to the victim and/or the friends and family.
Have you ever had to watch a loved one take several years to die from terminal illness? I can tell you from experience that their death is a blessing after watching a once-vibrant and healthy person slowly turn into a bed-ridden, comatose shell.
Death is a blessing and I look forward to it.

reply from: JRH

Because they have already developed it in the first place, while a fetus has not. Peter Singer, who is a philosopher I greatly admire made this distinction ages ago. Since the fetus has never had the ability in the past it is clearly in a different category.
That is a subjective view which I have logically rebutted, so, unless there is something else?
How did you rebut it? By establishing they are human? I'm not denying that. I deny they are persons, which is a subjective statement. You can't refute a subjectively arrived at definition any more than you can refute someones favorite flavor of ice cream.

reply from: JRH

Those two words I bolded are irrelevant. Right and wrong are not just matters of personal opinion. It is either right or wrong to kill innocent humans, regardless of your feelings on the topic.
Why? Morality is subjective and has no basis other than the desires and feelings of human beings, which include me.

reply from: JRH

You don't always dream when unconscious, and you can only remember some parts of some dreams.
No contradiction. "Altered state of consciousness" describes an unconscious state. You are not "conscious" in the conventional sense, where you would be fully aware, and remembering some parts of what "occurred" later does not imply that you were fully conscious at the time. At any rate, the point is that there are times when adults are not aware, unable to "reason or feel." There is such a thing as a "deep sleep," from which a person can not be awakened, and more often than not, persons have not only no "awareness" while sleeping, but no memory from that time either.
I explained, but it is irrelevant, since you are certainly not always dreaming, or "aware" in any way when sleeping, and certainly never under general anesthesia.
No, a sperm is just a reproductive cell, a part of the donor. A human individual only comes into existence at conception.... A blastocyst is a human individual in the early stages of development. A sperm is not. This is objective reality regardless of how you "see it."
Its not really objective, since I see the sperm as a stage we all have to go through. It just takes the actions of the parents to develop the sperm into a human person. If you are a sperm your parents have to it, and if you are a fetus your mother has to carry you to term by not killing herself and eating. Both are stages of development in which the being in question must depend on the parent to survive by that parent taking certain actions.
Second, read up on dreams you usually do no remember them but you do have them. You haven't really looked into the subject.
"No contradiction. "Altered state of consciousness" describes an unconscious state. You are not "conscious" in the conventional sense, where you would be fully aware, and remembering some parts of what "occurred" later does not imply that you were fully conscious at the time"

Incoherent. You are either consciousness or not. That term can not describe a state that is its direct opposite, that is to say unconsciousness.

reply from: JRH

Then it should be acceptable to kill any human being, at any age, and any level of development....
Um, only if they will go to heaven. You can't know that with adults as it would involved what Christians call "knowing their relationship with god". You don't want to send someone to hell by making an incorrect assessment. They assert ALL infants go to heaven, however, so you don't have to worry that killing one of them will send someone to hell .
So, you're saying that the only reason it is not ethical to kill any human being you want is because you can't be sure they will go to heaven? So all these other arguments were irrelevant to your position? A waste of time?
Prove that any unborn child goes to heaven. If you can not, you must logically concede that you are not "sure" they will, and that abortion can therefore not be justified according to your "logic."
I am not a Christian. I do not think they will go to heaven or hell, because I am not sure if they exist. A Christan, however, does believe in Jesus and heaven and is sure they exist. Otherwise they are not a real Christian because it is faith in Christ that saves them. So I think they can be sure and it is quite logical from their perspective to kill all children.
As for my personal reasons for not killing, they have nothing to do with heaven or hell.

reply from: scopia19822

That is not acceptable at all. Abortion is an issue that cannot be "compromised" on . It is saying that children concieved out of rape or incest are less human than other unborn children. It is like saying white people are superior to black people.However if a rape victim wants to avoid having to deal with ending an established pregnancy she can go to the local ER and get a rape kit and the morning after pill.

reply from: sheri

jr, The Peter Singer from Princton U. whom you profess to admire would be disappointed with you as an understudy. you seem to think a baby should have equal human rights after the 12th week and he thinks a 6month old BORN baby should be alive or dead at the whim of the mother. This is the logical end to any proabortion arguement, if killing an innocent is good at an early stage and for no reason then it follows that it will be ok at any later stage and for no good reason.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

When a child is killed he/she is dead. Death is the absence of life. A person does not contiune consciously living after death, they do not go to experience heaven. Death is our enemy, not our friend. The harsh reality is that a dead person ceases to experience life when they are dead. Death is a tragedy of untold magnitude. Death robs a person of everything.
Death is the unavoidable end of life. It is not our enemy, it is not a "tragedy of untold magnitude" and it doesn't rob the person who dies of ANYTHING except their physical existence. Even the Bible tells us that there is a time to live and a time to die. If death was not part of God's plan, we would not die, correct?
Of course, death is difficult for family and friends to deal with, especially the death
of a young child, death at an early age by disease or accident, slow and lingering detioration leading to death or sudden death. But in many cases, death is KIND to the victim and/or the friends and family.
Have you ever had to watch a loved one take several years to die from terminal illness? I can tell you from experience that their death is a blessing after watching a once-vibrant and healthy person slowly turn into a bed-ridden, comatose shell.
Death is a blessing and I look forward to it.
Death, a kind blessing? I'll have to disagree.
You look forward to death? Wow, that is pretty heavy duty stuff.

reply from: JRH

Actually, Singer has never placed the period at 6 months. He originally said 3 months but has been as high as a year, though 6 months was never his cut off.
As for why I do not support Singer, it is because I think that the arguments he gives for how this itl generate more pleasure are wrong, but I agree with is over all philosophy.

reply from: nancyu

Those two words I bolded are irrelevant. Right and wrong are not just matters of personal opinion. It is either right or wrong to kill innocent humans, regardless of your feelings on the topic.
Why? Morality is subjective and has no basis other than the desires and feelings of human beings, which include me.
I think it's highly doubtful that you are a human being. Can you prove this? Do you have any convincing evidence? Any evidence at all?

reply from: JRH

Those two words I bolded are irrelevant. Right and wrong are not just matters of personal opinion. It is either right or wrong to kill innocent humans, regardless of your feelings on the topic.
Why? Morality is subjective and has no basis other than the desires and feelings of human beings, which include me.
I think it's highly doubtful that you are a human being. Can you prove this? Do you have any convincing evidence? Any evidence at all?
Bend over and close your eyes and I'll prove it to you in a way you will never forget.

reply from: nancyu

Those two words I bolded are irrelevant. Right and wrong are not just matters of personal opinion. It is either right or wrong to kill innocent humans, regardless of your feelings on the topic.
Why? Morality is subjective and has no basis other than the desires and feelings of human beings, which include me.
I think it's highly doubtful that you are a human being. Can you prove this? Do you have any convincing evidence? Any evidence at all?
Bend over and close your eyes and I'll prove it to you in a way you will never forget.
Oh, gosh, you are so funny.
That might make me vomit, but it wouldn't prove you're human.
Hey MC, can you ban this one while you're at it? In the mean time, I'll just put him on ignore.

reply from: carolemarie

Carole, don't you know that it wouldn't be "fair" to save 9 out of 10 babies and "sacrifice" the other one? The only way you can appear "righteous" is to insist that either all must be saved, or all must die. To even suggest that compromise might be worth considering makes you a "proabort." [/sarcasm]
Oh yeah, I forgot that we were not allowed to use reason to end abortion, only self-rightous rhetoric.....or guns

reply from: CharlesD

He did? I must have missed that. Mine is up there too, and I did mention it in another thread, but I normally don't like going around telling people that because no matter how humble you try to be it often comes across as bragging. It used to be said that a genius IQ and fifty cents would still only buy you a cup of coffee, but these days it won't even get you that. Add $4 to that and you might be close.
I thought one of the hallmarks of a high IQ was the ability to think your views all the way through to their logical conclusion, yet we have all these little Singer disciples who don't seem able or willing to do that. Singer is at least a little more consistent with his world view than most of the people who throw his name out there in reverential tones. If you accept that humans can be killed for no reason other than convenience, then eventually there is no reason to stop at birth. If you ascribe to that world view, then anyone who "should have been aborted" can just be killed now. That adult with severe mental retardation that just sits around and drools on himself? Obviously he's just a burden, so why not off him? By that logic, he should have been aborted, so what's the difference in killing him now? Just be sure to use a method that is painless and do it in such a way that he is not aware that you are killing him. Awareness and the ability to feel pain are what gives a person the right to live, right? A bullet in the back of the head when the person doesn't know it's coming solves both of those problems quite nicely. No pain and no awareness of impending death.

reply from: JRH

Don't tell lies
I don't think it is, because what makes someone a person is subjective
Whatever you say
This is only because I assumed you were a Christian and the argument would apply for you.
You misunderstand. I think even if there is no afterlife the cessation of life can be a good thing. If you are suffering greatly and want to die, then your death is a good thing. I have said here that anyone may kill the unborn because they have a right to their bodies. They can kill them because the fetus has no right to use their body. I used another argument, beside my first one, against you because I assumed you were Christian.
So?
No, because I am a utilitarian. I consider pain to be the ultimate "bad". To me the question of suffering is the most important one there is. You may not agree with me, but that doesn't change my moral views.
As I already said, the adult has already developed a mind so it is in a different category. This is important because every time were unaware you thought you might be killed your fear would be unbearable. Thus the level of suffering is greatly increased
for thinking beings. This is not true of the unborn who never are aware in the first place.
Your view is also subjective so it doesn't matter.
Don't see how this has to be bad.
I don't really think this matters because the loss of future life is not inherently bad.

reply from: JRH

Actually, Singer has never placed the period at 6 months. He originally said 3 months but has been as high as a year, though 6 months was never his cut off.
As for why I do not support Singer, it is because I think that the arguments he gives for how this itl generate more pleasure are wrong, but I agree with is over all philosophy.
You disagree with his arguments, but support his philosophy? Well aren't you just the walking contradiction...
I disagree with his specific arguments on this on issue of what will create greater utility. I think that utility is better allowing them to live, but I do not disagree that maximum utility for all should be our goal. No contradiction there pal.

reply from: sheri

jr, you dont have a real problem with Singer's philosophy, your minor point of disagreement is only when it is ok to kill the innocent.

reply from: JRH

1. They are not using your body so you do not have a right to.
2. If you could then everyone would afraid and this would cause suffering, which is bad. Duh.
The terror is not for the victim; it is everyone else left alive who would feel terror because they know it could happen to them at any moment. You didn't understand my argument, apparently.
How?
Not really because my compromise stems from my Squatters Rights argument which I laid out elsewhere in this thread, which makes my view consistent because I view the body as a piece of property.
If it the *only* way I am forced to say yes, but I doubt it would ever be the only way in reality to remove him.
Legally I would say yes you should be able to, but ethically no because it would hurt his family and most likely destroy your life as well. Not good for anyone.

reply from: JRH

Of course you can kill him to save yourself etc. I meant you can not randomly walk up to someone and kill them.
No, because they know most people do not act that way and that the ones who would are restrained by law. If you made it legal a lot more people would do it and fear would increase.
Wrong, see above
See above
Np contradiction. They have to allow you to use if for a period before you can claim squatters rights without trying to stop you.
You can keep removing him so killing is not required.
I said *should* be legal. Not was legal. Thanks for playing our game....
No because it is her body. I grant that we should consider other factors ethically, but this does not mean we should enforce those considerations on others.

reply from: Hosea

I am for limiting any type of abortion but I would continue to work toward making abortion illegal except for Life of the mother. In my first loss, I had a baby who died at 9 weeks 6 days of gestation. That is just 7 weeks and 6 days after conception. My baby had fingers and toes , eyes, ears, mouth, and a tongue and only one and a half inches long from head to toe. He was beautiful but dead. He was not a clump of cells. He was my son. I should never had a right to kill him.

reply from: Hosea

I am against all abortions except for the mothers life. But I propose this just for agrgument sake. A baby has a heart beat at 21 days and brain waxes at 40 days. These are the two ways we determine death at the hospital. What if abortion was illegal 40 days after conception? How comfortable would you be with that?

reply from: JRH

I am for limiting any type of abortion but I would continue to work toward making abortion illegal except for Life of the mother. In my first loss, I had a baby who died at 9 weeks 6 days of gestation. That is just 7 weeks and 6 days after conception. My baby had fingers and toes , eyes, ears, mouth, and a tongue and only one and a half inches long from head to toe. He was beautiful but dead. He was not a clump of cells. He was my son. I should never had a right to kill him.
What you want will never happen in the USA thank goodness.

reply from: JRH

I am against all abortions except for the mothers life. But I propose this just for agrgument sake. A baby has a heart beat at 21 days and brain waxes at 40 days. These are the two ways we determine death at the hospital. What if abortion was illegal 40 days after conception? How comfortable would you be with that?
I would be opposed to the ban you propose 100%.

reply from: CharlesD

Can we all agree on a definition of a lie here?
There is no allowance there for a point of view that you disagree with. Unless you have evidence that someone has deliberately made a false statement, using a standard for truth that is more universally acceptable than a list of things you disagree with, then there are no grounds for calling that person a liar. That accusation has been flying around here a lot lately, and I have yet to see an instance in which it was justified. I have seen blatant lies told in here, and so far I have been gracious enough to simply refute them and not call the author a liar, but every accusation of lying I have seen recently has been unjustified. If you can't refute the argument, calling it a lie isn't going to help you any.

reply from: Hosea

JRH said
No, because I am a utilitarian. I consider pain to be the ultimate "bad". To me the question of suffering is the most important one there is. You may not agree with me, but that doesn't change my moral views.
Repeated studies have shown that babies can feel pain at 9 weeks. I also read a study that babies can feel pain at 7 weeks although they do not desciminate the pain to one part of their baody at that time. They know they are in pain but do not pull away that body part as the baby does at 9 weeks.
Whay did you choose 12 weeks as your cut off. What medical information do youhave about babies at 12 weeks. I know they don't have their hearing until 14 weeks. LAck of hearing is the only deficit that I know a baby has at 12 weeks

reply from: JRH

Sorry thats bull*****. You're either a liar or an idiot who did not do their research.
From wikipedia (links to reputable web sites are included as citations on the bottom of the wiki page)
"Weeks 11-17
Artist's depiction of fetus in the 11th week (i.e. 8 weeks after fertilization). The crown-rump length is 1.25 inches.[8]
The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 11th week.[2] At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams.[2] The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size.[9] Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[10]The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.[11][12]
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and will not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.[13][14] At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop.[15]
From weeks 11 to 14, the fetal eyelids close and remain closed for several months, and the fetus' sex may be apparent.[16] Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver, however the majority of red blood cells will be made later in gestation (at 21 weeks) by bone marrow.[9] A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool).[9] Fetal skin is almost transparent. The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week.[17]

reply from: Hosea

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965,
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120
Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a 'total pattern response' because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26
Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. '91, pg. 16
When are all his body systems present?
By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952
When do teeth form?
All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10
And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406
How about nine weeks?
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
When does he start to breathe?
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
"Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The 'well documented' higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976
"In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6
Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April '89, p. 932
And 11 weeks (9 weeks post-fertilization). Cunningham, Wm. Obstetrics, 1993, p. 193
When can he swallow?
At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233
What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes?
Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567
At what point are all his body systems working?
By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
How does the size of the baby increase in weight?
At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound

reply from: JRH

You actually quoted James Dobson as a reliable source. I'm sorry that they have take you in.
Also, brain function=/= awareness and ability to feel. Do your research.

reply from: Hosea

I also quoted the new England journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Time Life books. I guess to you they are also liars like you falsly accused me .

reply from: CharlesD

That's the new definition of liar around here. If you disagree with a pro choice person, you are a liar. it's a new tactic. If you can't adequately refute something, just call the person a liar. It's easier than having to come up with logically sound arguments for killing people.

reply from: JRH

But your quotes did not prove me wrong. Many of them addressed things which had nothing to do with the ability to feel pain.

reply from: CharlesD

The ability to feel pain is not what sets humans apart from other species. Your right to life is not dependent on your ability to feel pain.

reply from: JRH

My right to live is based on my awareness and ability to not use another to live against their will.

reply from: Rhiannontex

My right to live is based on my awareness and ability to not use another to live against their will.
So by your first criteria anyone in a coma is fair game...okay...

reply from: JRH

My right to live is based on my awareness and ability to not use another to live against their will.
So by your first criteria anyone in a coma is fair game...okay...
No because they have already developed awareness. A fetus has not and can not think.

reply from: MrBig

There is no allowance there for a point of view that you disagree with. Unless you have evidence that someone has deliberately made a false statement, using a standard for truth that is more universally acceptable than a list of things you disagree with, then there are no grounds for calling that person a liar. That accusation has been flying around here a lot lately, and I have yet to see an instance in which it was justified. I have seen blatant lies told in here, and so far I have been gracious enough to simply refute them and not call the author a liar, but every accusation of lying I have seen recently has been unjustified. If you can't refute the argument, calling it a lie isn't going to help you any.
Also any statement that is not true is a lie even if you thought it was true when you told it. It can be intentional or not according to number three below.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
lie1 /la?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
- noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

reply from: MrBig

Now that's a lie because it is not true. Brain function is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness requires brain function but brain function does not require consciousness. Make up your mind which one you are talking about and don't try to use them interchangeably. Maybe you mean what they call higher brain function?

reply from: MrBig

When you get put to sleep for surgery your brain still functions but you can't feel and are not aware but it's the higher functions that are asleep not your whole brain right?

reply from: JRH

=/= means not the same. I was saying they were different.

reply from: JRH

I asked you to explain your reasoning, in other words, tell us why you can kill to protect some rights, but not others, and what your criteria are. There is obviously more to it than "awareness" and "using your body," since you clearly stated that people who are "aware" and not "using anyone's body" can be killed in self defense. Attacking you is a violation of the integrity of your body. I don't see such an inconsistency there. You are having your rights violated again.
I don't and a lot of people do not. Don't over generalize thanks..
Ad hominem? Expected.....
We know "most people" will not "act that way" regardless of the law. A lot would though.
I think there a lot of people who would do terrible things in the absence of legal consequences, and if you think otherwise you are living in a dream world.
Ni, I didn't. I got the argument from Singer and can quote his book to prove that is the original argument. Your inability to understand it says nothing about me.
A car is not a human being who is attempting to kill you. Its purpose is not to kill and it really can't be compared to a killer whose sole intention is to kill you.
As for the argument, being unreasonable, well, if you aren't afraid being murdered in your sleep more power to you. It is not unreasonable to think that people will become scared if they have to go to sleep worrying they won't wake up. Pretty obvious really.
Then the argument was ridiculous from the start, since generally only unwanted pregnancies are aborted, and there would not likely have ever been any permission. A woman who does not want to be pregnant would not likely "allow" temporary use of her uterus, but would want the child gone as soon as she discovered it was there. The allowance comes from not choosing to get an abortion early.
The laws actually vary by state, but for the sake of argument we will assume you are correct. If the woman has to support the fetus she is indeed for the term of the pregnancy for all intents and purposes its property. I have no problem with this
being so if she allowed it to happen. Though in most states the apartment reverts to its original owner if it is vacated by the claimant anyway.......
Likewise, a pregnant woman can simply wait 9 months and the pregnancy will terminate naturally, so no killing is "required," but that was not the point, was it? You don't have to wait 9 months to remove him. The woman can not remove him and protect her rights in a timely fashion and you can. Beyond that, your body is not undergoing any changes from such encroachment.
No, because she can simply turn it over to the government at once. A non lethal immediate option is available.
No, it doesn't in any state. Parents can put their children up for adoption at anytime after birth. Its fairly simple to not have to do anything for the child you don't want to do.
Think again sweetheart.
Please! That's even worse! Thinking it is legal would just make you an idiot. Thinking it should be legal to kill a child for stepping on your flowers would make you a sociopath!
So be it.
So, ethics should not be considered in making and enforcing laws? While you might view murder or rape as unethical, you do not feel they should be illegal? Because they are violations of rights that the person should have protected.
That is my moral reason I like such laws. The reason I support them being legal is because of the violation of rights they cause, which is different from abortion where a violating no aware fetus is involved.
Clearly, it has to be tht or you are creating strawmans on purpose.
See above.
Moral argument, and not a legal one. Try again.

reply from: JRH

I have already rebutted this argument, and am still awaiting some semblance of a reasonable response....
Telling lies again I see.

reply from: CharlesD

Accusing someone of lying without pointing out the untruth in the statement that you consider to be a lie is pointless. Try refuting the argument instead of just calling it a lie. I won't hold my breath though.

reply from: Rosalie

No. What if the woman does not know if she's pregnant by those 12 weeks? I've seen women have a period throughout their entire pregnancies so they basically had no clue for the first few months that they were pregnant.
Also, what if they find out that the fetus might be severely damaged, which is something that can only be determined later in the pregnancy?
A woman should never be automatically required to be available to provide for a fetus. It should away be her conscious choice.

reply from: sheri

Damaged?!! you make the child sound like an item bought off ebay! You mean deformed (ugly) or DownsSyndrome (stupid), your anti life ideas are ugly and stupid, Ros, an innocent child should never be discarded because it is less then perfect.

reply from: Rhiannontex

Rosalie, there are women who somehow go through the whole pregnancy with no idea that they're pregnant. Do you think THEY should also be allowed to abort at the very last minute?

reply from: ladybug

No.. I don't think it's fair. The baby already has a heartbeat. So you are telling me that if someone is in a coma..and you just don't want to take care of them anymore, say they are your daughter, who is now 10 years old. But she is in a coma and the dr.'s have told you that she will come out of it, but it will take time. So you're going to kill her because she will not be aware of the death. And that's fair to her and you and to the rest of your family. to you husband, and if your daughter has any siblings..that's fair. She won't know you killed her. Fair.

reply from: ladybug

Sorry, a couple of points I should mention. I found out I was pregnant with my second child when I was 17 weeks pregnant. I just still sit here.... wondering why we even argue this issue.

reply from: Rosalie

You used words like ugly and stupid when talking about Down's Syndrome children. I happen to have one in my family and he is neither. Don't put words into my mouth.
'Fetal damage' is a valid term - I have no idea why the use of that word angered you so much. You clearly have some issues.

reply from: Rosalie

Is the daughter in coma physically dependent on one particular person? Is she directly affecting this one person's health and life? Can she potentially become a threat to that person life?
Incomparable situation.

reply from: Cecilia

Abortion laws aren't, or should not be, about appeasing protestors.
I noticed alot of prolifers on this thread want to make it all about them, and their experience. "I had a miscarriage" or "I had a forced abortion" so they skew their views on abortion into "no one should be able to abort because I experienced..."
If this is you, think about your motivations.

reply from: ladybug

Is the daughter in coma physically dependent on one particular person? Is she directly affecting this one person's health and life? Can she potentially become a threat to that person life?
Incomparable situation.
... Honestly? That was your answer for my post. Anyone could "potentially" become a threat to a persons life. If I teach my daughter to use a butter knife for her pancakes, she could .... potentially.. become a threat to her little sisters life if she used it wrong. Really... you can't use that. Our bodies as females were designed to HAVE babies, to procreate... not to kill.

reply from: JRH

So?
"So?"
So you responded with some drivel about heaven, which I utterly destroyed, and have yet to address this single most significant counter....
You don't understand. I was saying so because I already explained I don't see the loss of future existence as a bad thing necessarily. I don't see a reason to refute something which I don't think hurts my point, however, I notice you drop everything else after I pwned you in my last post. Expected.

reply from: JRH

Accusing someone of lying without pointing out the untruth in the statement that you consider to be a lie is pointless. Try refuting the argument instead I did.
His lie was that he refuted my arguments. He didn't.

reply from: CharlesD

Someone offers an airtight argument for the right to life of unborn people and you say that didn't refute your argument. That's downright laughable.

reply from: JRH

I think I have addressed all salient points, but please tell me why the argument is air tight and what I have failed to address. As I have said several times, loss of future existence is NOT bad in and of itself (in fact I explained how in many cases it is a good thing), and if you are a Christian you send the unborn to heaven with no risk of hell. I think on both secular and religious grounds I win this one.

reply from: CharlesD

Such a view is incompatible with Christian teaching. If you want to argue anything from a Christian perspective, you have to consider the entire body of Christian teaching. Yes, heaven is preferable to hell, but the killing of innocent people is wrong. Sending someone to heaven is not a just reason to kill him. If that were the case, then I might as well kill my grandmother. Heaven would be better than sitting in a wheel chair all day and having to be waited on hand and foot. If I were to kill her, she would be better off, but I would still be guilty of murder.

reply from: Hosea

I am against all abortions except for the mothers life. But I propose this just for agrgument sake. A baby has a heart beat at 21 days and brain waxes at 40 days. These are the two ways we determine death at the hospital. What if abortion was illegal 40 days after conception? How comfortable would you be with that?
Hosea
I would be opposed to the ban you propose 100%. JRH
Whensomeone can have an abortion should not be based upon when they do a pregnancy test. Why are you against this proposal. Human heartbeat and brainwaves are thereat 40 days. Doesn't this seem reaonable?

reply from: Cecilia

Abortion laws aren't, or should not be, about appeasing protestors.
It's not about you, and your Christian views, or your forced abortion, it's about someone else.

reply from: JRH

I was hoping you would say that, because the only way Christian apologists have defended the morality of these verses is by claiming that it was good to kill these children because they go to heaven:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

There are more as well. If, in Christian teaching, it is never permissible to kill for the greater good of a person you are left with quite a problem. Not to mention, god is violating his "absolute morality" anyway by demanding the killing of children be done.
I understand that obvious objection is that in these other cases god has not commanded you to kill the unborn though. I think this just makes Christian morality untenable because it means that there are no good or evil actions. Only actions god wants you to perform and not to perform. We are left with a monstrous system ruled over by a tyrant who does whatever he pleases regardless of who it effects.
You would never be sure she s saved, as you could for a fetus (so most claim anyway), so it is vastly different, in that you might send her to hell.

reply from: CharlesD

I have a pretty good idea about her standing as a Christian because she was one of those early influences in my life that influenced my decision to be a Christian as well. The scripture also says we can tell people by their fruit and she has produced much fruit in her life. You could argue that she is a good faker and that perhaps her faith isn't genuine, and the truth is that we can never know what is in the heart of a person, but we can look at the evidence and get a pretty good idea. I am confident in her being a Christian because of evidence that has been observed over a period of years.
Those other passages are some of the most difficult for Christians to deal with and I have heard many differing interpretations of them. The one I have heard most is that God's injunction against murder applies to innocent individuals, while those passages were God's judgment against a group of people that had "collective guilt." I even heard another argument that said that since those societies were so inherently Godless that even the children growing up in them would conform to the Godlessness of that society, but I'm not sure I fully buy into that. The other thought is that if God is the creator of everything that is, that He can simply do whatever He pleases with that which He created. That sounds a bit callous, especially in light of modern sensibilities.
Those are some counters I have read to what you presented, but they are not my original ideas. I would have to search for sources for those ideas, but I'm not home at the moment and I don't have access to my commentaries. I will have to admit that those passages are not ones that I have given a lot of thought to over the years, so I really don't want to offer what would not be a well thought out response at the moment. I will have to do a bit more studying to formulate a concrete view there.

reply from: CharlesD

Good point. Sometimes I can't resist.

reply from: JRH

Keep on living in that dream world.
No, because the harm that is done to a person who can think, and has in the past is greater. If a think can not think I do not consider any harm done to it to be worth considering as harm. True, you did point out that adults who were not aware were in the same boat, but I believe I have pointed out that is bad with my earlier argument.
Simply: A fetus can not feel pain and think, therefore the harm of suffering is not inflicted on it when it is killed. Since I consider pleasure and pain the ultimate it has not been as harmed as someone who would suffer and we can not allow the killing of adults who were aware because it would generate fear. I have countered your argument in the past and you are a delusional idiot.
See above.

reply from: JRH

You can't know she has not decnverted so my point stands.
Then you think that after WW2 all the children in Germany were guilty? I am afraid I don't see how I can be guilty for tha acts of another.
It sure does.
If you haven't thought about what appears to be shocking immorality in a book you think was written by those acting for your god, well, that says more about you than anything I could pose ever would.

reply from: CharlesD

Hey, the Bible is a rather large book and while I have read the whole thing, an in depth study of every single passage would take a lifetime. I've been a Christian for over 20 years and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. But you know, the Old Testament world was a very violent place. It is very hard for us to understand considering the way we look at things today. God would chastise His own people when they strayed and sometimes that even involved some of them dying, no doubt even some who were individually innocent according to the way we look at things today.
But as hard as it may sound, rather calloused I will admit, you need to look at this in light of the concept of the depravity of man. Now I know that concept will seem foreign to you, but you're the one who brought up religion to start with, so just indulge me here. If you hold to that idea, then you also hold to the idea that since man is depraved then he is deserving of nothing good. Anything good that comes to us, whether it be heaven or good things that happen here on earth, are an act of God's grace toward us. Grace is unmerited favor, people receiving from God what they don't deserve. In light of that, it could be argued that anytime a good thing happens to a person, he is not getting what he deserves, so when bad things happen to people, or to entire people groups, then those people are just getting what is due them.
That is just one way of dealing with some of those difficult passages where it appears that God is treating people rather harshly. I will admit that such passages are difficult to deal with, but I will also argue that in a way such passages are evidence for the historical validity of scripture. If I were to want to make up a religion and I were putting together some writings, I think I would more selectively edit some of the major character flaws in some of the key characters in the stories. I wouldn't have someone like David who was a man after God's own heart, but also a murderer and an adulterer. I might have also left out the part about Lot getting so drunk he slept with his daughters. Those aren't exactly the shining role models you want to present to people. In short, any person, Christian or otherwise, who claims to have a complete understanding of God is lying to you. We are told that His ways are not our ways. That might sound like a cop out to an unbeliever, but that is pretty much the way of things. God is sovereign and He can do whatever He pleases. I might not always understand Him completely, and sometimes I even get mad and shake my fist at Him, but in the end I can only control what I can control, and that is my own faith journey. I can follow Him as best as I know how and try to live my life in as consistent a Christian manner as I can manage, and I have to trust God for the rest, even when I don't quite understand what He is up to.
So I know that my answer is probably not satisfactory to you, but I really wouldn't expect it to be. You don't share my faith and like many skeptics like yourself, you want your philosophical views to line up nicely, or to be somehow quantifiable by a written in stone sort of proof. I could offer all manner of "proofs", basically offering some of the evidence that points to our world having been created, but you will dismiss it and possibly refer to it as Dawkins does, a God Delusion. You're free to hold that view. Time will tell which of us is right, but I'd rather live as if there is a God and be proven wrong than live as if there isn't and be proven wrong. The latter has more dire consequences, and I don't like those odds. But with all that said, I do find it rather funny that you would use scripture from a religion you don't even believe in to try to refute pro life arguments, especially pro life arguments that were made from a secular point of view. Tearing down Christianity does not tear down the pro life viewpoint since that view is not based solely in the teachings of Christianity. Plenty of atheists are pro life as well.

reply from: JRH

God has character flaws? Those things were commanded by god.
As for depravity, if children are already held by original sin they must also be depraved enough to go straight to hell, right? If their depravity is already in effect they do not deserve to go to heaven without being saved by Jesus. In order for your defense yo work you must admit all children go to hell when they die if they are not saved by Jesus Christ. You do not hold this view because you think the unborn go to heaven, thus your views are logically inconsistent .
Not if it is good evidence. I am interested in truth , and I would like to see whatever evidence you have so I can go onward with me own journey. CharlesD, many atheists want nothing more than for there to be a god, but are simply not convinced by the evidence there is. If you have any evidence I want to see it!
No, I'm not. Imagine that you see three cats in front of you. You can't make yourself think there is a 4th cat there simply by a force of will can you? Atheists and Christians alike can not simply change their positions based on their desires. You reach a conclusion and you think you are correct, but you have nothing to stop yourself from reaching a conclusion.
Are you serious? Pascal's wager is the worst argument in the history of the universe. If you really think that you should believe in the thing with the worst consequence then you should join JRHIsm. In JRHism you are sent to hell, but all of your family who are to young to understand go with you. JRHism's hell is worse than the Christian hell as well. It is worse than you can possibly imagine. All of you have to accept JRHism. So yo better convert to JRHism!
What if god only lets atheists and agnostics into heaven?
What if the Muslims are right?
What if eating Captain Crunch gets you into heaven and eating Lucky Charms damn you to hell?
All these things are possible, and without clear evidence to support one over another there is actually no reason to make a choice, because your current position as a whatever is just as likely to be right.
I look forward to your evidence for creation, because nothing would give me greater pleasure than to imagine that god loves me and that all my family will be with me in bliss forever. With that said, if your arguments and evidence are bad I will rip them to pieces.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I wish I was as strong as Guest (a catholic from another forum who waited so patiently for me to stumble through my attacks on Christianity). But I've only been re-dedicated to my faith since March, so my defenses are a little less well-thought out. I'm sure Charles will be able to answer your questions, but if you want to ask me anything, please do so.

reply from: JRH

What is your rational justification for your belief in Christianity?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I use Christianity as my tool for communicating with God; it is simply the "language" of faith I am most familiar with. It could be any religion really. I simply use Christianity because I am familiar with it, and because I believe in one God. I believe all true faiths on Earth are simply different ways humans interpreted God's presence. I believe Jesus was a great man; though as a liberal christian I'm still struggling with his divinity.
I believe in one God because when you zoom out and above everything, you come to one point. God is the universe; you could say the name of our universe is "God". I blend my scientific beliefs with the fact that I do feel a faith; I feel a connection. To say "I believe in God" feels right in my heart.
Here are some resources to help you understand my faith, and I'll explain the 10 Dimension thing in relation to God if you'd like after you watch it.
Imagining The 10th Dimension: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
">http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
Liberal Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...al_Christianity
The Christian Left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left

reply from: JRH

Then we agree on something. The universe clearly exists.
If the bible is not true what does it matter what I believe? Maybe atheism is the faith language I understand best. Do you think all atheists go to hell and all religious people to heaven?
I'm familiar with this stuff. It is based on nothing more than people "feeling god", and does not even follow the bible. I don't even consider it on the same level of Christianity which at least has the bible to ground itself. You don't have a rational basis for your belief, but please don't be offended by me saying so.

reply from: CharlesD

I'm putting together some things that I will post later. I've also got a lot of paperwork to tend to for my business today, so I might not be on here much today.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It doesn't matter what you believe. And it's not that all of the Bible is untrue, just that it was written by men and is thus fallable. I do not force my religion on others; I do not believe you have to be Christian to get into heaven. I do not believe that calling yourself Christian is enough to get into heaven. I believe good deeds get you into heaven.
I view the Bible as a guide, as the website on Liberal Christianity stated. I have the Bible to ground myself on; I simply do not believe it is a literal text to be worshipped within its own rights. Much of it is metaphor and allegory. I also fully understand that it is over 2000 years old. Times have changed, and furthermore the Bible has been retranslated so many times that who is to say it even conveys the original message anymore? But there are a lot of good ideas in the Bible, it is those ideas that I follow.
Atheism is not a faith, since you do not believe in a higher being. THAT is faith in the religious sense - believing in higher being(s). So perhaps you are Agnostic, if you do believe "something" is out there?
You just called me irrational and you expect me to not be offended? Perhaps you should rephrase how you speak if you wish to avoid causing offense.

reply from: JRH

How do you determine which parts are true and which parts are untrue? Are the part you dislike "untrue"?
Then you have pretty much discounted a large portion of the bible.
Define good. Who is good and who is evil. Which acts are good? Do you just pick whatever acts you like and say they are good? Obviously, you are not using the bible. Why can't I pick a different set of good and bad options? You don't have any grounding for what you think of as good and bad it seems to me.
No, you don't. Salvation by faith is what Jesus taught and if you want I can start pulling out verses.
How did you determine that some of it was such and not the rest of it? Jesus was not speaking in allegory when he was discussing hell.
I do not think so , because you deny the central Christian tenet of grace through faith.
Actually, atheists do have faith. They have faith that when you see a casual chain the casual chain is actually rel. David Hume pointed out that when you see two pool balls hit one another, there is no reason to think that when one hits the other it is what is making it move. We simply assume that it is. This is the problem of induction. Atheists have simply placed their faith in the most rational place (or what they think is the most rational place).
You are irrational. Facts are facts.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How do you determine which parts are true and which parts are untrue? Are the part you dislike "untrue"?Sort of. It's more like... "Is this verse true TODAY?" Can this section be logically applied to today's society and culture, which is much different from the culture of the Middle East 2000 years ago? Is it personally true for YOU? That's what I mean by "truth". And everyone will interpret that differently, and that's okay.
Then you have pretty much discounted a large portion of the bible.
The bible speaks of "faith in God" and accepting Jesus as your savior. God is love to me, so I feel anyone who does loving acts is performing God's work whether they know it or not. And I absolutely do not believe that God would condemn most of the planet to Hell just because they never get to hear the word of God. If you read of Jesus he focuses on actions, not just faith. That's why he saves the depraved. And no, most of what is written in the bible doesn't state "you must take Jesus as your savior or go to hell", in fact, very little is written that says anything near to that. Remember, all of the Old Testament is Jesus-free, and that's more than half the Bible right there.
Define good.
You define good. Most humans can agree on generalities of what is good and bad - otherwise we would never be able to invent laws. I'm not going to argue ethics with you. That's not the point of this discussion.
Do not murder.
Do not lie.
Respect your mother and father.
Do not cheat on your spouse.
I can go on and on. The rules I happen to already agree with are in the Bible. It's not so much I had to reform myself to BECOME Christian, but more like I realised I WAS Christian.
You're just not listening.
No, you don't. Salvation by faith is what Jesus taught and if you want I can start pulling out verses.
You're not Christian, and you only use the Bible to disprove others. To be honest, your interpretation of the Bible verses can't be considered anything but heavily biased. Yes, there are verses about that. There are also verses about how to diagnose whether or not a skin blemish is acne, a boil, or leprosy. Relevancy to today's world is important to remember when reading the Bible.
How did you determine that some of it was such and not the rest of it? Jesus was not speaking in allegory when he was discussing hell.
I personally don't have enough knowledge yet to do that for the whole entire Bible, but there are plenty of Biblical scholars out there doing very intense work on this subject. I could ask you how you can approve of using a computer if you can't make one yourself - from scrap, not just buying the pieces online. That's silly, isn't it?
I do not think so , because you deny the central Christian tenet of grace through faith.
That's Liberal Christianity. I never said I was a Catholic. Are you saying you don't think there are any good ideas in the Bible, or that you don't think I fully understand that the Bible is 2000 years old?
Actually, atheists do have faith. They have faith that when you see a casual chain the casual chain is actually rel. David Hume pointed out that when you see two pool balls hit one another, there is no reason to think that when one hits the other it is what is making it move. We simply assume that it is. This is the problem of induction. Atheists have simply placed their faith in the most rational place (or what they think is the most rational place).
That's not faith in a higher being, and that's what I am defining faith as in this discussion. What does "rel" mean? Faith is not something rational. You don't need "faith" for science, you need the facts. You seem confused to me. If you want to have faith, then have real faith. If you don't want to have it, then don't.
You are irrational. Facts are facts.
Then this conversation is over and you are on ignore.

reply from: JRH

So whatever I want to be true is true? Sounds like moral relativism. Anything can be justified if you are allowed to pick what you think applies and does not apply.
q]
The bible speaks of "faith in God" and accepting Jesus as your savior. God is love to me, so I feel anyone who does loving acts is performing God's work whether they know it or not. And I absolutely do not believe that God would condemn most of the planet to Hell just because they never get to hear the word of God. Then you do no believe Jesus when he says he is the only way to the father.
So what? Christians are under the new covenant of the New Testament. Jesus says clearly that only those who have faith in him go to heaven.
oh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Joh 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
Joh 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
So if a majority support slavery it is good? You're arguing for moral relativism.
It id indeed. It demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position.
But you disregard the parts of the bible that apply to the new covenant, namely the words of Jesus the Christ.
I am, you just aren't making sense.
Not if you trust the words of Jesus Christ, which you apparently don't.
i don't claim to know how a computer works. You are claiming you can logically accept some parts of the bible and not others. See the difference?
I think anyone who does not accept grace through faith is not a Christian.
You did not define faith that way to start with. Secondly, science depends on faith in certain underlying assumptions, such as the correctness of causal observations.

reply from: Hosea

Whensomeone can have an abortion should not be based upon when they do a pregnancy test.

reply from: JRH

Simply: A fetus can not feel pain and think, therefore the harm of suffering is not inflicted on it when it is killed. Since I consider pleasure and pain the ultimate it has not been as harmed as someone who would suffer and we can not allow the killing of adults who were aware because it would generate fear. I have countered your argument in the past and you are a delusional idiot.
I admit that in cases where the adult feels no pain it can be said to be the same, but address that pint by pointing out the worry it will cause to others, thus making it worse as well because more people suffer.
At this point I'm starting to think you are a moron.
And I pointed out it isn't because an aware being can suffer.
Which would put them into the same category as someone who is no longer aware. Their death will create fear, and hence suffering among other aware beings such as you and I. A fetus would not, so the argument still applies.
No, you ignore my rebuttals and claim you won irrationally.

reply from: JRH

I must have missed it. In any case, I will gladly address it now. You can not compare abortion to killing a fully adult human. For one thing, the mere fact that so many people support abortion is testimony that most of us not consider a fetus to be a person. I don't and neither do many Americans. You will have to accept that for many of us no fear comes about as a result. So the reactions produced from the killing of adults would necessarily be worse because all people think of adults as humans, while only some think about a fetus that way. So the over whelming utility gained from allowing abortions is greater than the fear caused by preventing them. thus we should still have abortions.
Second, fear for the unborn child is not nearly the same as fear that you will be killed at any moment. People would react with rage and angry fear if you tried to kill their child, and with just plain terror if they thought they would die.You don't even strike me as thinking that the fetus was a child. If you honestly thought it was you would have done anything to stop your wife, even kidnap her. The fact you did not shows you didn't really have the fear you would have if someone put a knife to your born children's throat.

reply from: JRH

It does because if they do not think of the fetus as a person they ill not be bothered by its termination.
Simple. Since a llot of people do not think of a fetus as a person they will not become afraid for their lives when a fetus dies. A lot of people have their lives greatly improved by abortion and are no bothered by it. I think from a Utilitarian perspective this means that while some people are bothered , not enough are to over ride the pleasure received from abortions.
Adults on the other hand would cause fear and suffering if they were killed and people were placed in the same situation as the people being killed. In that instance there is more suffering than pleasure by allowing the killing.
....no
Not quite what I mean. It is what produces the GREATEST pleasure and the greatest suffering. An act may cause some people to become afraid, but if there is more happiness produced the act is ethical.
Most people walk by abortion clinics and don't start panicking. The same is not true of murder scenes.......
There are a lot of nutsos on the internet.
Nope. Children are born.
That only proves you are an extremist wacko.
Most people do not seem to agree.
You don't get it. By stopping abortion you negate the happiness that comes from it. It is a "either/or". Either you negate the happiness or let some people suffer for the greater utility.

reply from: JRH

Most people are not. They walk b abortion clinics and do not recoil.
Nope. If more pleasure is produced than pain it is ethical. I will address why this is the case later in my post.
I am sorry if you misunderstood. The fear was important only because it lead to suffering. I may have communicated that incorrectly. If you google Utilitarianism you will see that I am not attempting to change anything. you have just misunderstood me.
I will provide you with some Singerian arguments. This is long but it can not simplified.
We may not know for certain but we can use reason to try to figure it out.
NO. I said already that only suffering is bad, and pleasure is good. You just seem to misunderstand Utilitarianism.
You can't "prove" killing is immoral either. We have to do the best we can to determine morals
It depends on how much happiness was produced.
You haven't been around many murder scenes then. In any case, neither of us can prove them self right here. My case is built around the fact that if we allowed the killing of adults for whatever reason people would know they would never be safe, thus they would be afraid and suffer and the murder scene argument in this instance is not important to my case.
You can't prove the other way around either.

reply from: lukesmom

I can't finish reading this. It sickens me. I feel like I am in the presence of pure evil. Gag. I have to go vomit.

reply from: Hosea

Whensomeone can have an abortion should not be based upon when they do a pregnancy test.
Why are you against this proposal. Human heartbeat and brainwaves are thereat 40 days. Doesn't this seem reaonable?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics