A two year old can breathe without a machine. I'm not talking about long term forage the forest for food survival. I'm talking about simple very short term biological survival.
Find the average age a fetus can survive outside of the womb. Go back 4 or 5 standard deviations. There's the cutoff.
I hope that you thank your mother for not feeling the way you do.
Please don't make laws that decide right and wrong for me. You can instill right from wrong for all of your kids even if abortion is legal.
Well you see that is the issue isn't it. The pro-choice movement has already succeeded in making killing legal. Debate about when a life becomes a life if you want. The bible (if you subscribe to it) describes the baby in the womb as a life. It does not say it is a life at any specific age. Just a life. There are many scientists that prescribe to that theory, and if you took biology class you realize that it is a life upon conception.
What I find funny is a lot of you that embrace this view, will lament the killing of a far inferior life-form like a cat or dog or baby seal or some african mud guppy. But you will make every excuse for killing a baby inside the womb.
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. The mother obviously doesn't want it. If it were to be removed, it couldn't survive by itself. It hasn't achieved human status yet. It's not murder.
Do you really believe this?
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. If I inderstand you correctly that would then mean you would reform the laws as to include a born baby who can not survive on its own? I really doubt a born baby will live very long without the loving attention of a mother or caretaker. So if it can't "find" its own food manage on its own it should be left free to die?
I just don't follow the logic. If I do follow the logic it is really a bad day for humanity if indeed it is all about each for his or her own.
If parents want to they can just let their kids starve and have no criminal consequence? Is it a defense for a parent in a case like this example to just say.... "well those kids were old enough to fend for themselves and they just could not handle it"? Is that something you would also turn a blind eye to BR as it is "none of your business"
I am only curious. I like to follow the logic of ones philosophy.
I don't claim I know it all or anything like that I only seek to understand.
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. If I inderstand you correctly that would then mean you would reform the laws as to include a born baby who can not survive on its own? I really doubt a born baby will live very long without the loving attention of a mother or caretaker. So if it can't "find" its own food manage on its own it should be left free to die?
I just don't follow the logic. If I do follow the logic it is really a bad day for humanity if indeed it is all about each for his or her own.
If parents want to they can just let their kids starve and have no criminal consequence? Is it a defense for a parent in a case like this example to just say.... "well those kids were old enough to fend for themselves and they just could not handle it"? Is that something you would also turn a blind eye to BR as it is "none of your business"
I am only curious. I like to follow the logic of ones philosophy.
I don't claim I know it all or anything like that I only seek to understand.
Fellows
There are complex moral issues involved, and difficulty in grasping its implications because, try as we might, there are no satisfactory analogies. The EXTREME views I have heard are:
1) It is living tissue, just as a tumor is living tissue. But as long as it is in the body, the owner (the woman) may do with it as she pleases - she may abort it...she may take drugs to cause birth deformaties, she may starve it...
2) From the moment of conception, it is a complete soul, a human being AND it has a right to draw nourishment from its mother and to live. It cannot be aborted, even in the case of rape. Kill the zygot, and it is 1st degree murder.
Neither is a satisfying position - and society obviously has mixed feelings (hence a woman can abort and kill, but not damage a fetus with drug abuse).
I've had one thought, however. If the state determines death upon the stopping of Brain Activity (flatline) should it not define human life as the beginning of brain waves ? I don't know what month of preg. that would be, but it would make the law more consistent.
There are complex moral issues involved, and difficulty in grasping its implications because, try as we might, there are no satisfactory analogies. The EXTREME views I have heard are:
1) It is living tissue, just as a tumor is living tissue. But as long as it is in the body, the owner (the woman) may do with it as she pleases - she may abort it...she may take drugs to cause birth deformaties, she may starve it...
2) From the moment of conception, it is a complete soul, a human being AND it has a right to draw nourishment from its mother and to live. It cannot be aborted, even in the case of rape. Kill the zygot, and it is 1st degree murder.
Neither is a satisfying position - and society obviously has mixed feelings (hence a woman can abort and kill, but not damage a fetus with drug abuse).
I've had one thought, however. If the state determines death upon the stopping of Brain Activity (flatline) should it not define human life as the beginning of brain waves ? I don't know what month of preg. that would be, but it would make the law more consistent.
You make excellent points MaxParrish! Great points..
Indeed one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is illegal"
Likewise one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is legal"
You see it depends. Depends what the circumstances are.
I believe an abortion to save a mother's life would be a legally protected action where if done purly electively it should be a crime for the same reasons Murder is a crime.
Please don't make laws that decide right and wrong for me.
While I understand your point you have got to be kidding bunge. Do you not realize that when the government says "downloading copy-protected MP3 files from file sharing servers is illegal that that is a law based on the morality of some whether you like it or not?
Every law is determined by a mindset of morality and ethics. It may not be your mindset or your morality or your ethics but the laws are the laws none the less.
So when the government has a law that "decides" it is wrong for you to commit murder you have to submit to that law or be outside the law and face penalties.
As i said before, this whole issue is just another attempt to remove consequences from our lives. You must first take a hard look at what sexual relations are for. Procreation is the only solid answer. Pleasure is just an added bonus. Just as life can continue being meaningful without limbs and members life can continue without casual sex.
The argument always revolves around the abortion when it should revolve around responsibility in the first place.
Of coarse that would mean teaching morals and you will never get an liberal to agree to that. Sorry if I offend any liberals, but fact is fact.
I would be glad to see abortion legal if there were checks and balances and it was used only as a last resort, but you will see people fight that tooth and nail. For pro-choicers it is all or nothing. Like I mentioned these people will fight to save a convicted serial killer and yet promote killing of a fetus.
The abortion issue holds in it keys to so many other issues. If try to teach morals you then kinda have to preach no sex till marriage. You kinda have to promote marriage. This in turn, does not help promote the gay issues. Just the opposite. Of course casual sex then pretty much becomes a no no. That hurts woman's rights and the woman's lib movement. The baby becomes more important than the mother. You then have to promote healthy families. I realize that it is a vicious circle for liberals because they have adopted so wholeheartedly these issues as keystones to their cause.
I am sorry that I have "attacked" liberals here, but once again liberal is almost always equal to pro-choice and vise versa.
What has happened is that in the modern times we live in today "liberals" are far from being what they used to claim they were for. A true "liberal" would put human rights or as I like to call it "selfless rights" ahead of "selfish" rights.
Today "liberals" many of them anyway push for "selfish" rights and have little regard for human rights.
You make excellent points MaxParrish! Great points..
Indeed one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is illegal"
Likewise one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is legal"
You see it depends. Depends what the circumstances are.
I believe an abortion to save a mother's life would be a legally protected action where if done purly electively it should be a crime for the same reasons Murder is a crime.
Those are my thoughts.
Fellows
I've never been comfortable with the arguement, as advanced by BR, that the fetus can be aborted anytime prior to the point in could survive on its own (which is odd, why not allow abortions after that date if it can indeed survive on its own? And what special "right" does it have to stay in the womb AFTER it can survive, is it "more human" at that point???)
Nor am I enamored with the dependency objection of pro-choicers: i.e. that a fetus is a burdon to the mother (as if a newborn is not? So, what happens if the mother 'lets it survive' on a park bench or paper sack?)
There are a couple of issues: First, when is it a proto-human life (life, but not yet a cognitive being) and what rights might they have ? Second, when is it "human", and what rights do they have? To me, if we define the life of the mind as the ending (or beginning) of life, it would be a step in the right direction. What month of preg. that is, well I don't know. I can't see that a monocelled zygot is truely human, but I can some weeks or months later when the brain becomes functioning.
What has happened is that in the modern times we live in today "liberals" are far from being what they used to claim they were for. A true "liberal" would put human rights or as I like to call it "selfless rights" ahead of "selfish" rights.
Today "liberals" many of them anyway push for "selfish" rights and have little regard for human rights.
We see a shift in values.
Fellows
For me its even more complicated. Roe vs. Wade was an awefull legal decsion. The Supreme Court invented a new right in order to take the issue out of the relm of democracy. I hope one day it will be dumped as bad law.
However, such authority to determine life was/is decided at the state level (not Supreme Court nor the Congress). If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I'd strongly support a reasonable and logical abortion right in my State...
Am I pro-choice or pro-life ? I'm waiting for some politico to pick up on this.
For me its even more complicated. Roe vs. Wade was an awefull legal decsion. The Supreme Court invented a new right in order to take the issue out of the relm of democracy. I hope one day it will be dumped as bad law.
However, such authority to determine life was/is decided at the state level (not Supreme Court nor the Congress). If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I'd strongly support a reasonable and logical abortion right in my State...
Am I pro-choice or pro-life ? I'm waiting for some politico to pick up on this.
You nailed the issue here when you say you would strongly support a reasonable and logical abortion right in your state. That is how I stand with the matter as well.
This is why in my lenghty post earlier I highlighted the words NEVER and ALWAYS as being neither reasonable nor viable stances on abortion. Always allow legal or never allow legal abortion is faulty and lacks integrity in logic. I believe an intelligent political figure should pick up on the "third" possibility in which abortion with certain criteria is legal and abortion which lack certain criteria is illegal just as we now see with music downloads on the internet.
Well you see that is the issue isn't it. The pro-choice movement has already succeeded in making killing legal. Debate about when a life becomes a life if you want. The bible (if you subscribe to it) describes the baby in the womb as a life. It does not say it is a life at any specific age. Just a life. There are many scientists that prescribe to that theory, and if you took biology class you realize that it is a life upon conception.
What I find funny is a lot of you that embrace this view, will lament the killing of a far inferior life-form like a cat or dog or baby seal or some african mud guppy. But you will make every excuse for killing a baby inside the womb.
Here is another angle.
What if you are wrong about when life begins?
I'll take my chances. If there's a moral obligation to pay for my mistakes, then I'll pay it. I don't need someone to make that choice for me. I trust in myself to make the proper decisions.
As for the bible, keep it out of my government. It's got absolutely no place in the government of the United States.
I'll take my chances. If there's a moral obligation to pay for my mistakes, then I'll pay it. I don't need someone to make that choice for me. I trust in myself to make the proper decisions.
As for the bible, keep it out of my government. It's got absolutely no place in the government of the United States.
The framers (the term founding fathers actually offends some) did not feel that way.
I'll take my chances. If there's a moral obligation to pay for my mistakes, then I'll pay it. I don't need someone to make that choice for me. I trust in myself to make the proper decisions.
As for the bible, keep it out of my government. It's got absolutely no place in the government of the United States.
Although I disagree with your views, i do admire the fact you are willing to accept consequences of your decisions. That is more than most.
First off everyone, obviously BR is referring to a feotus being able to survive outside the womb without special medical attention. Food and water aren't medical attention. No one can survive without them so that's obviously not the standard for 'humanity' anyone believes.
Look at it this way, a C-section is basically a late term abortion. So all the mommies that want to birth their child before it gets so big it's painful have an 'early C-section,' not an abortion.
First off everyone, obviously BR is referring to a feotus being able to survive outside the womb without special medical attention. Food and water aren't medical attention. No one can survive without them so that's obviously not the standard for 'humanity' anyone believes.
Look at it this way, a C-section is basically a late term abortion. So all the mommies that want to birth their child before it gets so big it's painful have an 'early C-section,' not an abortion.
Everyone happy?
Woah, equating a C section with an late term abortion is not going to fly, there is one important difference; the baby lives with a C section.
Woah, equating a C section with an late term abortion is not going to fly, there is one important difference; the baby lives with a C section.
Let's do something useful with this thread. We all seem to cover the spectrum of positions at play today, right.
Let's see if we can come up with the framework for a law to legalize abortion while protecting life at the same time. I would say to come up with a point when reasonably the fetus is considered viable..
We all seem pretty intelligent, and I am curious if we as a group could do better than our so called representatives.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, yes, but for every family that is trying to instill right and wrong into their children.
Please don't make laws that decide right and wrong for me. You can instill right from wrong for all of your kids even if abortion is legal.
Originally posted by BR
A two year old can breathe without a machine. I'm not talking about long term forage the forest for food survival. I'm talking about simple very short term biological survival.
Find the average age a fetus can survive outside of the womb. Go back 4 or 5 standard deviations. There's the cutoff.
I hope that you thank your mother for not feeling the way you do.
Originally posted by bunge
Please don't make laws that decide right and wrong for me. You can instill right from wrong for all of your kids even if abortion is legal.
Well you see that is the issue isn't it. The pro-choice movement has already succeeded in making killing legal. Debate about when a life becomes a life if you want. The bible (if you subscribe to it) describes the baby in the womb as a life. It does not say it is a life at any specific age. Just a life. There are many scientists that prescribe to that theory, and if you took biology class you realize that it is a life upon conception.
What I find funny is a lot of you that embrace this view, will lament the killing of a far inferior life-form like a cat or dog or baby seal or some african mud guppy. But you will make every excuse for killing a baby inside the womb.
Here is another angle.
What if you are wrong about when life begins?
Originally posted by BR
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. The mother obviously doesn't want it. If it were to be removed, it couldn't survive by itself. It hasn't achieved human status yet. It's not murder.
Do you really believe this?
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. If I inderstand you correctly that would then mean you would reform the laws as to include a born baby who can not survive on its own? I really doubt a born baby will live very long without the loving attention of a mother or caretaker. So if it can't "find" its own food manage on its own it should be left free to die?
I just don't follow the logic. If I do follow the logic it is really a bad day for humanity if indeed it is all about each for his or her own.
If parents want to they can just let their kids starve and have no criminal consequence? Is it a defense for a parent in a case like this example to just say.... "well those kids were old enough to fend for themselves and they just could not handle it"? Is that something you would also turn a blind eye to BR as it is "none of your business"
I am only curious. I like to follow the logic of ones philosophy.
I don't claim I know it all or anything like that I only seek to understand.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Do you really believe this?
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. If I inderstand you correctly that would then mean you would reform the laws as to include a born baby who can not survive on its own? I really doubt a born baby will live very long without the loving attention of a mother or caretaker. So if it can't "find" its own food manage on its own it should be left free to die?
I just don't follow the logic. If I do follow the logic it is really a bad day for humanity if indeed it is all about each for his or her own.
If parents want to they can just let their kids starve and have no criminal consequence? Is it a defense for a parent in a case like this example to just say.... "well those kids were old enough to fend for themselves and they just could not handle it"? Is that something you would also turn a blind eye to BR as it is "none of your business"
I am only curious. I like to follow the logic of ones philosophy.
I don't claim I know it all or anything like that I only seek to understand.
Fellows
There are complex moral issues involved, and difficulty in grasping its implications because, try as we might, there are no satisfactory analogies. The EXTREME views I have heard are:
1) It is living tissue, just as a tumor is living tissue. But as long as it is in the body, the owner (the woman) may do with it as she pleases - she may abort it...she may take drugs to cause birth deformaties, she may starve it...
2) From the moment of conception, it is a complete soul, a human being AND it has a right to draw nourishment from its mother and to live. It cannot be aborted, even in the case of rape. Kill the zygot, and it is 1st degree murder.
Neither is a satisfying position - and society obviously has mixed feelings (hence a woman can abort and kill, but not damage a fetus with drug abuse).
I've had one thought, however. If the state determines death upon the stopping of Brain Activity (flatline) should it not define human life as the beginning of brain waves ? I don't know what month of preg. that would be, but it would make the law more consistent.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
There are complex moral issues involved, and difficulty in grasping its implications because, try as we might, there are no satisfactory analogies. The EXTREME views I have heard are:
1) It is living tissue, just as a tumor is living tissue. But as long as it is in the body, the owner (the woman) may do with it as she pleases - she may abort it...she may take drugs to cause birth deformaties, she may starve it...
2) From the moment of conception, it is a complete soul, a human being AND it has a right to draw nourishment from its mother and to live. It cannot be aborted, even in the case of rape. Kill the zygot, and it is 1st degree murder.
Neither is a satisfying position - and society obviously has mixed feelings (hence a woman can abort and kill, but not damage a fetus with drug abuse).
I've had one thought, however. If the state determines death upon the stopping of Brain Activity (flatline) should it not define human life as the beginning of brain waves ? I don't know what month of preg. that would be, but it would make the law more consistent.
You make excellent points MaxParrish! Great points..
Indeed one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is illegal"
Likewise one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is legal"
You see it depends. Depends what the circumstances are.
I believe an abortion to save a mother's life would be a legally protected action where if done purly electively it should be a crime for the same reasons Murder is a crime.
Those are my thoughts.
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
Please don't make laws that decide right and wrong for me.
While I understand your point you have got to be kidding bunge. Do you not realize that when the government says "downloading copy-protected MP3 files from file sharing servers is illegal that that is a law based on the morality of some whether you like it or not?
Every law is determined by a mindset of morality and ethics. It may not be your mindset or your morality or your ethics but the laws are the laws none the less.
So when the government has a law that "decides" it is wrong for you to commit murder you have to submit to that law or be outside the law and face penalties.
Fellowship
The argument always revolves around the abortion when it should revolve around responsibility in the first place.
Of coarse that would mean teaching morals and you will never get an liberal to agree to that. Sorry if I offend any liberals, but fact is fact.
I would be glad to see abortion legal if there were checks and balances and it was used only as a last resort, but you will see people fight that tooth and nail. For pro-choicers it is all or nothing. Like I mentioned these people will fight to save a convicted serial killer and yet promote killing of a fetus.
The abortion issue holds in it keys to so many other issues. If try to teach morals you then kinda have to preach no sex till marriage. You kinda have to promote marriage. This in turn, does not help promote the gay issues. Just the opposite. Of course casual sex then pretty much becomes a no no. That hurts woman's rights and the woman's lib movement. The baby becomes more important than the mother. You then have to promote healthy families. I realize that it is a vicious circle for liberals because they have adopted so wholeheartedly these issues as keystones to their cause.
I am sorry that I have "attacked" liberals here, but once again liberal is almost always equal to pro-choice and vise versa.
Today "liberals" many of them anyway push for "selfish" rights and have little regard for human rights.
We see a shift in values.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You make excellent points MaxParrish! Great points..
Indeed one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is illegal"
Likewise one can not make the statement and be 100% accurate: "Downloading songs off the internet is legal"
You see it depends. Depends what the circumstances are.
I believe an abortion to save a mother's life would be a legally protected action where if done purly electively it should be a crime for the same reasons Murder is a crime.
Those are my thoughts.
Fellows
I've never been comfortable with the arguement, as advanced by BR, that the fetus can be aborted anytime prior to the point in could survive on its own (which is odd, why not allow abortions after that date if it can indeed survive on its own? And what special "right" does it have to stay in the womb AFTER it can survive, is it "more human" at that point???)
Nor am I enamored with the dependency objection of pro-choicers: i.e. that a fetus is a burdon to the mother (as if a newborn is not? So, what happens if the mother 'lets it survive' on a park bench or paper sack?)
There are a couple of issues: First, when is it a proto-human life (life, but not yet a cognitive being) and what rights might they have ? Second, when is it "human", and what rights do they have? To me, if we define the life of the mind as the ending (or beginning) of life, it would be a step in the right direction. What month of preg. that is, well I don't know. I can't see that a monocelled zygot is truely human, but I can some weeks or months later when the brain becomes functioning.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I really admire your ideas. You have been thoughtful with your view.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What has happened is that in the modern times we live in today "liberals" are far from being what they used to claim they were for. A true "liberal" would put human rights or as I like to call it "selfless rights" ahead of "selfish" rights.
Today "liberals" many of them anyway push for "selfish" rights and have little regard for human rights.
We see a shift in values.
Fellows
For me its even more complicated. Roe vs. Wade was an awefull legal decsion. The Supreme Court invented a new right in order to take the issue out of the relm of democracy. I hope one day it will be dumped as bad law.
However, such authority to determine life was/is decided at the state level (not Supreme Court nor the Congress). If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I'd strongly support a reasonable and logical abortion right in my State...
Am I pro-choice or pro-life ? I'm waiting for some politico to pick up on this.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
For me its even more complicated. Roe vs. Wade was an awefull legal decsion. The Supreme Court invented a new right in order to take the issue out of the relm of democracy. I hope one day it will be dumped as bad law.
However, such authority to determine life was/is decided at the state level (not Supreme Court nor the Congress). If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I'd strongly support a reasonable and logical abortion right in my State...
Am I pro-choice or pro-life ? I'm waiting for some politico to pick up on this.
You nailed the issue here when you say you would strongly support a reasonable and logical abortion right in your state. That is how I stand with the matter as well.
This is why in my lenghty post earlier I highlighted the words NEVER and ALWAYS as being neither reasonable nor viable stances on abortion. Always allow legal or never allow legal abortion is faulty and lacks integrity in logic. I believe an intelligent political figure should pick up on the "third" possibility in which abortion with certain criteria is legal and abortion which lack certain criteria is illegal just as we now see with music downloads on the internet.
Fellowship
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well you see that is the issue isn't it. The pro-choice movement has already succeeded in making killing legal. Debate about when a life becomes a life if you want. The bible (if you subscribe to it) describes the baby in the womb as a life. It does not say it is a life at any specific age. Just a life. There are many scientists that prescribe to that theory, and if you took biology class you realize that it is a life upon conception.
What I find funny is a lot of you that embrace this view, will lament the killing of a far inferior life-form like a cat or dog or baby seal or some african mud guppy. But you will make every excuse for killing a baby inside the womb.
Here is another angle.
What if you are wrong about when life begins?
I'll take my chances. If there's a moral obligation to pay for my mistakes, then I'll pay it. I don't need someone to make that choice for me. I trust in myself to make the proper decisions.
As for the bible, keep it out of my government. It's got absolutely no place in the government of the United States.
Originally posted by bunge
I'll take my chances. If there's a moral obligation to pay for my mistakes, then I'll pay it. I don't need someone to make that choice for me. I trust in myself to make the proper decisions.
As for the bible, keep it out of my government. It's got absolutely no place in the government of the United States.
The framers (the term founding fathers actually offends some) did not feel that way.
Originally posted by bunge
I'll take my chances. If there's a moral obligation to pay for my mistakes, then I'll pay it. I don't need someone to make that choice for me. I trust in myself to make the proper decisions.
As for the bible, keep it out of my government. It's got absolutely no place in the government of the United States.
Although I disagree with your views, i do admire the fact you are willing to accept consequences of your decisions. That is more than most.
Look at it this way, a C-section is basically a late term abortion. So all the mommies that want to birth their child before it gets so big it's painful have an 'early C-section,' not an abortion.
Everyone happy?
Originally posted by bunge
First off everyone, obviously BR is referring to a feotus being able to survive outside the womb without special medical attention. Food and water aren't medical attention. No one can survive without them so that's obviously not the standard for 'humanity' anyone believes.
Look at it this way, a C-section is basically a late term abortion. So all the mommies that want to birth their child before it gets so big it's painful have an 'early C-section,' not an abortion.
Everyone happy?
Woah, equating a C section with an late term abortion is not going to fly, there is one important difference; the baby lives with a C section.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Woah, equating a C section with an late term abortion is not going to fly, there is one important difference; the baby lives with a C section.
Maybe bunge has never seen These pictures
These are better pictures.
It is very sad and I do not apologize for being pro-life.
Fellows
Originally posted by NaplesX
Woah, equating a C section with an late term abortion is not going to fly, there is one important difference; the baby lives with a C section.
Let's do something useful with this thread. We all seem to cover the spectrum of positions at play today, right.
Let's see if we can come up with the framework for a law to legalize abortion while protecting life at the same time. I would say to come up with a point when reasonably the fetus is considered viable..
We all seem pretty intelligent, and I am curious if we as a group could do better than our so called representatives.