|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 14:23:33 GMT -5
So when do you think life begins? It's arbitrary. Life is just an English word. Maybe we can call yet-born babies prealive. Societies have to work these things out. Technology's made it tougher and tougher ethical decision. I'm not saying abortion isn't infanticide. I just believe the choice should be up to the mother. Obviously it's best not to do it at all and if you are the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 14:36:06 GMT -5
So when do you think life begins? It's arbitrary. Life is just an English word. Maybe we can call yet-born babies prealive. Societies have to work these things out. Technology's made it tougher and tougher ethical decision. I'm not saying abortion isn't infanticide. I just believe the choice should be up to the mother. Obviously it's best not to do it at all and if you are the sooner the better. Ok. So you want to try and sidetrack this. I know that Life is just an English word but, last time I checked, words are a major form of communication. I'll take another stab at this. When do you believe that a fetus is a distinct organism? At what point do you think we should extend rights to the fetus?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 14:49:40 GMT -5
Ok. So you want to try and sidetrack this. I know that Life is just an English word but, last time I checked, words are a major form of communication. I'll take another stab at this. When do you believe that a fetus is a distinct organism? At what point do you think we should extend rights to the fetus? Personally I would say after it is out of the mother. Before that it's still part of her body and her decision. I don't like the state having any say so before that. I don't think the state should force women to have abortions either.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 14:53:51 GMT -5
The fetus magically becomes a living being only at the exact moment that a mother decides she want to keep the baby and not kill it. Of course, this magical transformation can be reversed back and forth depending on the circumstances. That is called moral relativism or for the non-religious, situational ethics. Neither of which has to be consistent or make any sense. "Before that it's still part of her body"I thought you valued science? That's not scientific. WOW, what a statement, the baby isn't alive until after it's born. So at that exact moment, that's when the organs function, the nervous system starts up and the heart beats? Prior to that, it's dead. I didn't know that.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 14:57:30 GMT -5
Personally I would say after it is out of the mother. Before that it's still part of her body and her decision. What do you base this on? Based on what you've said we don't have the right to even try to stop late-term abortions. Is that how you feel? Do you think that late-term abortions are acceptable if the mother so chooses?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:04:24 GMT -5
The fetus magically becomes a living being only at the exact moment that a mother decides she want to keep the baby and not kill it. Of course, this magical transformation can be reversed back and forth depending on the circumstances. That is called moral relativism or for the non-religious, situational ethics. Neither of which has to be consistent or make any sense. "Before that it's still part of her body"I thought you valued science? That's not scientific. WOW, what a statement, the baby isn't alive until after it's born. So at that exact moment, that's when the organs function, the nervous system starts up and the heart beats? Prior to that, it's dead. I didn't know that. All I'm saying is that's my personal opinion of how our society should deal with the legalities of it. I don't do magic and science doesn't do morality.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:05:47 GMT -5
Do you think that late-term abortions are acceptable if the mother so chooses? Yes
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:05:52 GMT -5
"You've yet to make a point."
you must have missed this, I will repost it since you can't seem to read it above.
LOL. I didn't expect you to explain it because you either can't or it would contradict your premise. The fact that you skipped verses and truncated verses attests to that already. You can't argue on the merits of anything as it stands....you have to alter it first....you stack the deck. It's lame debating and transparent.
As a side note, I love the fact that any answer that anyone can give, in regards to the CORRECT and COMPLETE wording of the scripture and context, as it is written, versus how you sculpted it, is automatically made invalid by you. That of course is on purpose. Misquote and mischaracterize something in a butchered manner and then when somebody fills in all the blanks and context you removed, you accuse them of rationalizing.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:07:15 GMT -5
"I don't do magic and science doesn't do morality."
Stating that the baby isn't alive until it's born isn't science.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 15:07:27 GMT -5
..... science doesn't do morality. I didn't think you even believed in morality. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 15:08:51 GMT -5
Do you think that late-term abortions are acceptable if the mother so chooses? Yes Do you support Euthanization?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:09:09 GMT -5
Stating that the baby isn't alive until it's done isn't science. No but restating someones opinion to mean something other than what they said IS a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:10:48 GMT -5
Do you support Euthanization? As a personal choice, sure. Who owns you? You or the state?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 15:16:12 GMT -5
Do you support Euthanization? As a personal choice, sure. Who owns you? You or the state? Do you support Euthanizing a retarded individual who cannot care for themself? Or perhaps an elderly person who suffers from Alzheimer's and cannot care for themself?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:18:06 GMT -5
"No but restating someones opinion to mean something other than what they said IS a straw man."
Did I say this?
"It's arbitrary. Life is just an English word. Maybe we can call yet-born babies prealive."
Do you know what happens to the meaning of a word when you put, "pre" in front of it?
Apparently you don't, so let me decipher your own words for you.
"yet-born babies" = babies not born "prealive" = before being alive or prior to being alive
Translation = babies not born yet are not alive yet.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:29:49 GMT -5
Do you support Euthanization? As a personal choice, sure. Who owns you? You or the state? uhh...euthanization is not a form of suicide.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:37:26 GMT -5
As a personal choice, sure. Who owns you? You or the state? Do you support Euthanizing a retarded individual who cannot care for themself? Or perhaps an elderly person who suffers from Alzheimer's and cannot care for themself? No, no. As a personal choice. Physician assisted suicide. If somebodies brain dead. Not against somebodies will. If that's what you mean by euthanasia I'm against that.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:41:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 15:42:21 GMT -5
Do you support Euthanizing a retarded individual who cannot care for themself? Or perhaps an elderly person who suffers from Alzheimer's and cannot care for themself? No, no. As a personal choice. Physician assisted suicide. If somebodies brain dead. Not against somebodies will. If that's what you mean by euthanasia I'm against that. You've said that you support the right for late-term abortions. Where do you make the distinction between a baby who is able to live outside the womb with assistance but unable to voice their will and with a retarded individual who is able to survive with assistance but also unable to let their will be known?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 15:46:07 GMT -5
No, no. As a personal choice. Physician assisted suicide. If somebodies brain dead. Not against somebodies will. If that's what you mean by euthanasia I'm against that. You've said that you support the right for late-term abortions. Where do you make the distinction between a baby who is able to live outside the womb with assistance but unable to voice their will and with a retarded individual who is able to survive with assistance but also unable to let their will be known? Me? It's a property rights thing. Who owns the body. I believe we should own our own bodies. I also believe a fetus can be understood as part of a womens body. I believe abortion is a tough ethical issue. Now for the tough question. Where do you stand and why?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:50:00 GMT -5
"Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)"
This is somebody killing another person, so when you state, "As a personal choice, sure. Who owns you? You or the state?"
You are speaking of suicide, not somebody else killing you having the authority of the state to do so.
I see you clarified your comments...no need for me to go any further.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:56:33 GMT -5
"I also believe a fetus can be understood as part of a womens body."LOL. I like how you are wording your arguments now. You make statements that are guaranteed not to be able to be refuted, while still claiming something as a fact. Let me try. I believe that it can be understood that you are wrong about everything you post on this forum. Hey, it works.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 24, 2007 16:08:55 GMT -5
Me? It's a property rights thing. Who owns the body. I believe we should own our own bodies. I also believe a fetus can be understood as part of a womens body. Using specifically late-term abortions as an example for now, this doesn't make sense. We all know that a baby that's born pre-mature in the third trimester has an excellent chance for survival due to the technology we now have. To destroy the fetus that would otherwise survive outside of the womb because the mother decides they no longer want it can be compared to nothing but murder. The mother is imposing her will on something that is simply unable to voice their will much like someone who is severely handicapped or suffers from a disease that has destroyed their mind. A late-term abortion is exactly the same as ending the life of your grandmother simply because her mind has practically ceased to function and she requires constant care to simply survive. It doesn't have to be. Let's go back to my previous example of a fetus in the third trimester. Because of technology your hear of babies born at this stage all the time and surviving just fine. Because of technology we are saving babies who are born in the second trimester. It is very reasonable to think that, at some point, we will have the technology to save babies at any stage and to "grow" them outside of the womb completely. This basically means you're basing your opinion of when a fetus becomes a distinct organism based on technology. If a child was "grown" apart from the uterus of a woman, when would it become a distinct organism? At conception. I think it's pretty obvious where I stand ;D I believe life starts at the moment the egg and sperm hook up and I believe it because I think it is the most intellectually honest opinion. I've yet to be given any opinions that would indicate that life does not start at conception.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 16:54:10 GMT -5
Using specifically late-term abortions as an example for now, this doesn't make sense. We all know that a baby that's born pre-mature in the third trimester has an excellent chance for survival due to the technology we now have. To destroy the fetus that would otherwise survive outside of the womb because the mother decides they no longer want it can be compared to nothing but murder. The mother is imposing her will on something The mother has a unique relationship with that something. She made it. She carried it. It came out of her. It doesn't have to be. Let's go back to my previous example of a fetus in the third trimester. Because of technology your hear of babies born at this stage all the time and surviving just fine. Because of technology we are saving babies who are born in the second trimester. It is very reasonable to think that, at some point, we will have the technology to save babies at any stage and to "grow" them outside of the womb completely. This basically means you're basing your opinion of when a fetus becomes a distinct organism based on technology. If a child was "grown" apart from the uterus of a woman, when would it become a distinct organism? At conception. It doesn't matter. I never said abortion wasn't infanticide. I only said it should be the mother's choice. I believe life starts at the moment the egg and sperm hook up and I believe it because I think it is the most intellectually honest opinion. I've yet to be given any opinions that would indicate that life does not start at conception. I think life is a gradual process. We grow alive. There is no magic moment. Since people obviously have different opinions about it shouldn't the state leave it up to the conscience of the mother? 1.2 million people in America actively agree with this position a year. It's just an issue of law. Like beating a dog or eating faux gras.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 17:46:14 GMT -5
"I think life is a gradual process. We grow alive. There is no magic moment."
Even so, there has to be a starting point of this "gradual process". If not, please explain how a process doesn't have a start and why conception, for this specific process under discussion, is not, in fact, that start?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 18:13:05 GMT -5
This isn't a academic issue. It's real life. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. No one is going to force anyone to have an abortion in America. If you want to live in a totalitarian state get out before you ruin this country. This was just on reddit: "I'll personally never have an abortion. But if anyone tells me politicians should meddle in what should be between one's doctor and one's self, I'll tell them, politely, to gof*** themselves, and then explain why." disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 18:22:41 GMT -5
"This isn't a academic issue. It's real life. It doesn't matter how you feel about it."
Uhh...my questions had nothing to do with feelings and they do deal with real life. It is an academic issue when you make an academic remark as to the start of human life.
Again:
"I think life is a gradual process. We grow alive. There is no magic moment."
Even so, there has to be a starting point of this "gradual process". If not, please explain how a process doesn't have a start and why conception, for this specific process under discussion, is not, in fact, that start?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 21:34:23 GMT -5
"This isn't a academic issue. It's real life. It doesn't matter how you feel about it."Uhh...my questions had nothing to do with feelings and they do deal with real life. It is an academic issue when you make an academic remark as to the start of human life. Again: "I think life is a gradual process. We grow alive. There is no magic moment."Even so, there has to be a starting point of this "gradual process". If not, please explain how a process doesn't have a start and why conception, for this specific process under discussion, is not, in fact, that start? You can peg "Life" beginning anywhere you want. It's totally arbitrary. The term is too abstract to have a meaning. Chickens and carrots are alive. Question: A twelve year old girl is raped by her daddy and 12 of his friends. She gets pregnant. Should this girl carry the child to term? Your wife or daughter is raped, she gets pregnant. She's going to die if she gives birth. What should she do? Who decides?
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 24, 2007 22:33:21 GMT -5
The hardest thing in the world for me to believe is WHAT MAKES SOMEBODY LIKE YOU TICK.....mentally, Spiritually, etc.!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 2:06:25 GMT -5
"You can peg "Life" beginning anywhere you want. It's totally arbitrary. The term is too abstract to have a meaning."
Hey, you are not alive yet....you are dead. See how stupid that sounds? That's the application of your logic. You CAN'T peg life beginning anywhere you want. I would like to see how arbitrary you think death is. LOL. "I'm not dead yet!...as you scream to the top of your lungs during an autopsy."
Who decides? If your moral ethics are based on a religion than your religion is what the decision is based upon. If your moral ethics are based on what you have gleened and accepted from other religions, then it's based on that. I have yet to meet a person who's ethics were not based off of already established mores of religion. An atheist such as yourself can trace your moral teachings back to your parents or their parents or their parents, etc.
I like your "examples", pro-abortion people always have to use the most extreme scenarios in order to bolster their arguments. It's called an Appeal to Emotion.
|
|